Dark Matter; Real? Or Imagined?

[ding]

Gravity. The presence of energy creates space and time because of gravity.

Gravity is a form of energy. How is gravity able to create space and time out of a position of nowhere and nowhen? Where and when is this position or whatelse exists instead of this?

I don't see gravity creating space and time per se. I see gravity as a consequence of space and time which is a consequence of the presence of energy/matter. So the presence of energy/matter is what creates space and time. Like I said before... no matter/energy, no gravity, no space and time.

What else exists instead or outside or before this?

Nothing - specially existed no "before" before time started.

Existence, God. Or if you prefer a less philosophical answer... probably radiation.

It existed no time, no space, no energy and no natural laws - but radiation (which is a form of energy) ?

Whatever it is, it is not energy or matter as we know it. It is beyond energy and matter. Consciousness without form.

God is consciousness without form? What do you say, god? Are you consciousness without form? ... What means "If you like me to be without hands!". No - I don't laugh now. ... But okay - a little smile: For a probably existing and/or not existing entity I have to agree that this was not one of your very worst jokes, father. ...

To say nothing existed before our time or there was no before because our time did not exist is an idiotic argument. ...

Idiotic or not - that's the only thing we are able to say about this not existing time. If it smells like nothing - looks like nothing - feels like nothing - and so on: Why not to call it "nothing", if this is the only thing we are able to say and to think about in a realistic perspective?

Because it is inaccurate.

Sure it is 'inacurate' = it fits not with our experienes - not with any of all possible experiences. We don't know anything about this "time", which is no time, in a "space", where is no spacee, with an energy, which was not energy. We are not able to say anything about what we know, because we know nothing about, so the only thing what we are able to say about in a plausible way of natrual science is nothing - what we don't do, because we are curios. So we ask what this is, what we are not able to ask.

Relatively speaking there were other events which preceded our space time.

Nothing becomes true because you or anyone else thinks something is true.

To say they have no meaning because they occurred before our space time is inaccurate.

I did not say a nothing or the nothing has no meaning for something what is not nothing. But what is this meaning? What is someone able to say in a plaubible way of the nothing "before" the not nothing started to be?

It takes no great leap of imagination to imagine other space and times. What makes those other space and times space and times is the presence of energy. No energy, no space and time. Seriously, this isn't that difficult of a concept to grasp. The creation of some space and times would logically occur before the creation of our space and time. The creation of other space and times would logically occur after our space and time. So your problem must be one of point of reference because you can't comprehend anything happening outside of our space and time.

It's like you are inside of a bubble and can't comprehend that there are other bubbles.

 

[ding]

Bottom line: dark matter has to be there because there is not enough matter in the universe to account for the observable motions and behavior!

Which by definition makes it a fudge factor.

Or what serious, educated people call, "a hypothesis".

Or imagined. A hypothesis would be able to hypothesize which particles it is made up of. Let me know when you can tell me what particles it is made up of.

 

[ReinyDays]

Or imagined. A hypothesis would be able to hypothesize which particles it is made up of. Let me know when you can tell me what particles it is made up of.

It might be just a single particle ... no known reason why there has to be Standard Model counter parts ...

We're not imagining the discrepancies ... think of it as a mythological particle ... we've discussed what mythology is before ... simply made up so our gravitation equations work ... and that's useful ... God forbid anyone discredit Einstein ... it's not my place to point out the speed of light is slowing down ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A hypothesis would be able to hypothesize which particles it is made up of.

No, that is something arbitrary you just made up to save face. It is only called "matter" by convention, in that in interacts with the gravitational force.

 

[ding]

Or imagined. A hypothesis would be able to hypothesize which particles it is made up of. Let me know when you can tell me what particles it is made up of.

It might be just a single particle ... no known reason why there has to be Standard Model counter parts ...

We're not imagining the discrepancies ... think of it as a mythological particle ... we've discussed what mythology is before ... simply made up so our gravitation equations work ... and that's useful ... God forbid anyone discredit Einstein ... it's not my place to point out the speed of light is slowing down ...

A fudge factor.

 

[ding]

A hypothesis would be able to hypothesize which particles it is made up of.

No, that is something arbitrary you just made up to save face. It is only called "matter" by convention, in that in interacts with the gravitational force.

Without forming structures?

 

[toobfreak]

Bottom line: dark matter has to be there because there is not enough matter in the universe to account for the observable motions and behavior!

Which by definition makes it a fudge factor.

I don't see it that way. If you're looking the other way and hear squealing brakes and a crash, you didn't have to see it to know that a car just crashed.

If I have a tub of opaque liquid filled to the line and walk away and come back and it's now 2 inches over the line, I don't have to know who or what was added to it to know that something the volume of that extra 2-inches must have been added to the tub.

Galaxies cannot spin as they are plainly seen to do and still hold together with the observable mass unless there is an additional mass there that is unobservable. And since the mass of matter interacts with it, we call that Dark Matter.

 

[ding]

Bottom line: dark matter has to be there because there is not enough matter in the universe to account for the observable motions and behavior!

Which by definition makes it a fudge factor.

I don't see it that way. If you're looking the other way and hear squealing brakes and a crash, you didn't have to see it to know that a car just crashed.

If I have a tub of opaque liquid filled to the line and walk away and come back and it's now 2 inches over the line, I don't have to know who or what was added to it to know that something the volume of that extra 2-inches must have been added to the tub.

Galaxies cannot spin as they are plainly seen to do and still hold together with the observable mass unless there is an additional mass there that is unobservable. And since the mass of matter interacts with it, we call that Dark Matter.

I know you don't. I question the need to invent an explanation because I question our ability to know the acceleration of expansion. Who knows what happens to light as it travels through the vast distances between galaxies.

 

[zaangalewa]

Gravity. The presence of energy creates space and time because of gravity.

Gravity is a form of energy. How is gravity able to create space and time out of a position of nowhere and nowhen? Where and when is this position or whatelse exists instead of this?

I don't see gravity creating space and time per se. I see gravity as a consequence of space and time which is a consequence of the presence of energy/matter. So the presence of energy/matter is what creates space and time. Like I said before... no matter/energy, no gravity, no space and time.

What else exists instead or outside or before this?

Nothing - specially existed no "before" before time started.

Existence, God. Or if you prefer a less philosophical answer... probably radiation.

It existed no time, no space, no energy and no natural laws - but radiation (which is a form of energy) ?

Whatever it is, it is not energy or matter as we know it. It is beyond energy and matter. Consciousness without form.

God is consciousness without form? What do you say, god? Are you consciousness without form? ... What means "If you like me to be without hands!". No - I don't laugh now. ... But okay - a little smile: For a probably existing and/or not existing entity I have to agree that this was not one of your very worst jokes, father. ...

To say nothing existed before our time or there was no before because our time did not exist is an idiotic argument. ...

Idiotic or not - that's the only thing we are able to say about this not existing time. If it smells like nothing - looks like nothing - feels like nothing - and so on: Why not to call it "nothing", if this is the only thing we are able to say and to think about in a realistic perspective?

Because it is inaccurate.

Sure it is 'inacurate' = it fits not with our experienes - not with any of all possible experiences. We don't know anything about this "time", which is no time, in a "space", where is no spacee, with an energy, which was not energy. We are not able to say anything about what we know, because we know nothing about, so the only thing what we are able to say about in a plausible way of natrual science is nothing - what we don't do, because we are curios. So we ask what this is, what we are not able to ask.

Relatively speaking there were other events which preceded our space time.

Nothing becomes true because you or anyone else thinks something is true.

To say they have no meaning because they occurred before our space time is inaccurate.

I did not say a nothing or the nothing has no meaning for something what is not nothing. But what is this meaning? What is someone able to say in a plaubible way of the nothing "before" the not nothing started to be?

It takes no great leap of imagination to imagine other space and times.

Fine - tell me how to move from the left side to the right side through a 2-dimensional time within a 5 dimensional space, genius. With what kind of feet are you going under this conditions - and what kind of brain do you need to coordinate this feet?

What makes those other space and times space and times is the presence of energy.

Because of what?

No energy, no space and time.

Why? Where is the causal structure for this idea?

Seriously, this isn't that difficult of a concept to grasp.

You speak only on a high level of stupidity, that's all.

The creation of some space and times would logically occur before the creation of our space and time.

How for heavens sake is someone able to say "before time" had happened something? What exactly do you say by saying so?

The creation of other space and times would logically occur after our space and time.

Wherein exists our space and time if it is not nothing? And if it is nothing what are we able to say about it?

So your problem

It is not my problem. I speak about a general problem of the human mind. Everything what we know was always only within our own universe. So why do we think our logos is able to overstep the limits of our own universe, if we don't believe in god?

must be one of point of reference because you can't comprehend anything happening outside of our space and time.

It's like you are inside of a bubble and can't comprehend that there are other bubbles.

There is no bubble, because there is no outside. Our universe expands, what means it expands from all points into all directions. Whoever travels through our universe is always "only" in the middle of our universe.

 

[toobfreak]

I question our ability to know the acceleration of expansion.

I know of no acceleration or expansion involved in estimating Dark Matter.

Who knows what happens to light as it travels through the vast distances between galaxies.

Astrophysicists.

 

[ding]

Gravity. The presence of energy creates space and time because of gravity.

Gravity is a form of energy. How is gravity able to create space and time out of a position of nowhere and nowhen? Where and when is this position or whatelse exists instead of this?

I don't see gravity creating space and time per se. I see gravity as a consequence of space and time which is a consequence of the presence of energy/matter. So the presence of energy/matter is what creates space and time. Like I said before... no matter/energy, no gravity, no space and time.

What else exists instead or outside or before this? Nothing - specially existed no "before" before time started.

Existence, God. Or if you prefer a less philosophical answer... probably radiation.

It existed no time, no space, no energy and no natural laws - but radiation (which is a form of energy) ?

Whatever it is, it is not energy or matter as we know it. It is beyond energy and matter. Consciousness without form.

God is consciousness without form? What do you say, god? Are you consciousness without form? ... What means "If you like me to be without hands!". No - I don't laugh now. ... But okay - a little smile: For a probably existing and/or not existing entity I have to agree that this was not one of your very worst jokes, father. ...

To say nothing existed before our time or there was no before because our time did not exist is an idiotic argument. ...

Idiotic or not - that's the only thing we are able to say about this not existing time. If it smells like nothing - looks like nothing - feels like nothing - and so on: Why not to call it "nothing", if this is the only thing we are able to say and to think about in a realistic perspective?

Because it is inaccurate.

Sure it is 'inacurate' = it fits not with our experienes - not with any of all possible experiences. We don't know anything about this "time", which is no time, in a "space", where is no spacee, with an energy, which was not energy. We are not able to say anything about what we know, because we know nothing about, so the only thing what we are able to say about in a plausible way of natrual science is nothing - what we don't do, because we are curios. So we ask what this is, what we are not able to ask.

Relatively speaking there were other events which preceded our space time.

Nothing becomes true because you or anyone else thinks something is true.

To say they have no meaning because they occurred before our space time is inaccurate.

I did not say a nothing or the nothing has no meaning for something what is not nothing. But what is this meaning? What is someone able to say in a plaubible way of the nothing "before" the not nothing started to be?

It takes no great leap of imagination to imagine other space and times.

Fine - tell me how to move from the left side to the right side through a 2-dimensional time within a 5 dimensional space, genius. With what kind of feet are you going under this conditions - and what kind of brain do you need to coordinate this feet?

Turn left at the 7 11.

What makes those other space and times space and times is the presence of energy.

Because of what?

Because of gravity.

No energy, no space and time.

Why? Where is the causal structure for this idea?

In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself. So... No energy, no gravity, no space and time.

Seriously, this isn't that difficult of a concept to grasp.

You speak only on a high level of stupidity, that's all.

You are the one in a bubble that can't comprehend the existence of other bubbles; some which preceded your bubble and some which were created after your bubble.

The creation of some space and times would logically occur before the creation of our space and time.

How for heavens sake is someone able to say "before time" had happened something? What exactly do you say by saying so?

Because each bubble has its own space and time and some bubbles were created before your bubble and some were created after your bubble.

The creation of other space and times would logically occur after our space and time.

Wherein exists our space and time if it is not nothing? And if it is nothing what are we able to say about it?

Our space and time exists inside of our bubble. Other space and times exist within their bubbles but there was precedence in bubbles, dummy.

So your problem must be one of point of reference because you can't comprehend anything happening outside of our space and time. It's like you are inside of a bubble and can't comprehend that there are other bubbles.

It is not my problem. I speak about a general problem of the human mind. Everything what we know was always only within our own universe. So why do we think our logos is able to overstep the limits of our own universe, if we don't believe in god?

Nothing I am describing limits God.

There is no bubble, because there is no outside. Our universe expands, what means it expands from all points into all directions. Whoever travels through our universe is always "only" in the middle of our universe.

Our universe isn't expanding in all directions. It is fairly flat.

Look up multiverses to understand the concept of other bubbles.

 

[ding]

I question our ability to know the acceleration of expansion.

I know of no acceleration or expansion involved in estimating Dark Matter.

Who knows what happens to light as it travels through the vast distances between galaxies.

Astrophysicists.

The perceived increasing acceleration of the universe is the justification for dark matter/dark energy.

How do Astrophysicists know what happens to light as it travels through the vast distances between galaxies. Which experiment did they perform that tested light traveling between galaxies?

 

[zaangalewa]

Gravity. The presence of energy creates space and time because of gravity.

Gravity is a form of energy. How is gravity able to create space and time out of a position of nowhere and nowhen? Where and when is this position or whatelse exists instead of this?

I don't see gravity creating space and time per se. I see gravity as a consequence of space and time which is a consequence of the presence of energy/matter. So the presence of energy/matter is what creates space and time. Like I said before... no matter/energy, no gravity, no space and time.

What else exists instead or outside or before this? Nothing - specially existed no "before" before time started.

Existence, God. Or if you prefer a less philosophical answer... probably radiation.

It existed no time, no space, no energy and no natural laws - but radiation (which is a form of energy) ?

Whatever it is, it is not energy or matter as we know it. It is beyond energy and matter. Consciousness without form.

God is consciousness without form? What do you say, god? Are you consciousness without form? ... What means "If you like me to be without hands!". No - I don't laugh now. ... But okay - a little smile: For a probably existing and/or not existing entity I have to agree that this was not one of your very worst jokes, father. ...

To say nothing existed before our time or there was no before because our time did not exist is an idiotic argument. ...

Idiotic or not - that's the only thing we are able to say about this not existing time. If it smells like nothing - looks like nothing - feels like nothing - and so on: Why not to call it "nothing", if this is the only thing we are able to say and to think about in a realistic perspective?

Because it is inaccurate.

Sure it is 'inacurate' = it fits not with our experienes - not with any of all possible experiences. We don't know anything about this "time", which is no time, in a "space", where is no spacee, with an energy, which was not energy. We are not able to say anything about what we know, because we know nothing about, so the only thing what we are able to say about in a plausible way of natrual science is nothing - what we don't do, because we are curios. So we ask what this is, what we are not able to ask.

Relatively speaking there were other events which preceded our space time.

Nothing becomes true because you or anyone else thinks something is true.

To say they have no meaning because they occurred before our space time is inaccurate.

I did not say a nothing or the nothing has no meaning for something what is not nothing. But what is this meaning? What is someone able to say in a plaubible way of the nothing "before" the not nothing started to be?

It takes no great leap of imagination to imagine other space and times.

Fine - tell me how to move from the left side to the right side through a 2-dimensional time within a 5 dimensional space, genius. With what kind of feet are you going under this conditions - and what kind of brain do you need to coordinate this feet?

Turn left at the 7 11.

What makes those other space and times space and times is the presence of energy.

Because of what?

Because of gravity.

No energy, no space and time.

Why? Where is the causal structure for this idea?

In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself. So... No energy, no gravity, no space and time.

Seriously, this isn't that difficult of a concept to grasp.

You speak only on a high level of stupidity, that's all.

You are the one in a bubble that can't comprehend the existence of other bubbles; some which preceded your bubble and some which were created after your bubble.

The creation of some space and times would logically occur before the creation of our space and time.

How for heavens sake is someone able to say "before time" had happened something? What exactly do you say by saying so?

Because each bubble has its own space and time and some bubbles were created before your bubble and some were created after your bubble.

The creation of other space and times would logically occur after our space and time.

Wherein exists our space and time if it is not nothing? And if it is nothing what are we able to say about it?

Our space and time exists inside of our bubble. Other space and times exist within their bubbles but there was precedence in bubbles, dummy.

"Bubble" of or in what? A "bubble" in a nothing? Again: If the sum of all positive and negative energy of the universe is 0 and you would never had been a part of our universe and you would live "outside" of our universe - wherever this could be if it could be at all - then you would just simple not be able to make any interaction with our universe, because something what is without energy is not able to interact - and what is not able to interact is not existing. But also this we are not able to say. Indeed we are not able to say anything - we are only able to say nothing.

So your problem must be one of point of reference because you can't comprehend anything happening outside of our space and time. It's like you are inside of a bubble and can't comprehend that there are other bubbles.

It is not my problem. I speak about a general problem of the human mind. Everything what we know was always only within our own universe. So why do we think our logos is able to overstep the limits of our own universe, if we don't believe in god?

Nothing I am describing limits God.

[/Quote]

God is an entity which we are not able to describe - but his creation we are able to understand and to describe, because god is not a liar. So it is clear that every description of his creation not needs knowledge about god.

There is no bubble, because there is no outside. Our universe expands, what means it expands from all points into all directions. Whoever travels through our universe is always "only" in the middle of our universe.

Our universe isn't expanding in all directions. It is fairly flat.

Both is true as far as we know. The universe is flat and it expands. The only problem I see in this context is sometimes for me that it is not clear when physicists speak only about an empty space and when they speak really about "nothing". I guess they speak about a neverending empty space, when they speak about an uncertainity relation of the nothing in this context.

Look up multiverses to understand the concept of other bubbles.

A multiverse is an idea. The only "thing" what connects other universes with our universe is logic and mathematics - but we don't have any chance to prove whether we use mathematics the right or wrong way, because experiments are not possible in this context - and we also do not know whether universes are possible which have a totally other form of logic and mathematics, which we are never able to understand for example or whether a universe exists which is without logic and mathematics at all, what would perhaps be a perfect hell. In general: What do we know about a mathematics "outside" of the universe (which has not outside)? Nothing! It's the same problem. We have nothing to say about this situation - also not mathematically. Perhaps works mathematics in this context - perhaps not. Ignoramus. Ignorabimus. We don't know it. We will not know it.

 

[toobfreak]

The perceived increasing acceleration of the universe is the justification for dark matter/dark energy.

No. That acceleration is ascribed only to the effect of Dark Energy. In fact, 'Dark Energy' was created just to explain that acceleration but there is absolutely no other evidence or reason to believe it really exists, which is why I tend to discount it's existence.

How do Astrophysicists know what happens to light as it travels through the vast distances between galaxies.

If you had any real education in physics, you'd already know that.

 

[zaangalewa]

I question our ability to know the acceleration of expansion.

I know of no acceleration or expansion involved in estimating Dark Matter.

Who knows what happens to light as it travels through the vast distances between galaxies.

Astrophysicists.

The perceived increasing acceleration of the universe is the justification for dark matter/dark energy.

How do Astrophysicists know what happens to light as it travels through the vast distances between galaxies. Which experiment did they perform that tested light traveling between galaxies?

We take a look in the sky and see this light with our eyes.

 

[Unkotare]

... The big band theory is already dead ...

I beg to differ, sir.

 

[ding]

The perceived increasing acceleration of the universe is the justification for dark matter/dark energy.

No. That acceleration is ascribed only to the effect of Dark Energy. In fact, 'Dark Energy' was created just to explain that acceleration but there is absolutely no other evidence or reason to believe it really exists, which is why I tend to discount it's existence.

How do Astrophysicists know what happens to light as it travels through the vast distances between galaxies.

If you had any real education in physics, you'd already know that.

You are doing a great job arguing for the existence of something you tend to discount exists.

I just have a lowly engineering degree. But I know enough that I know you actually didn't answer the question. So.... since you apparently had a real education in physics, How do Astrophysicists know what happens to light as it travels through the vast distances between galaxies?

 

[ding]

Nothing I am describing limits God.

God is an entity which we are not able to describe - but his creation we are able to understand and to describe, because god is not a liar. So it is clear that every description of his creation not needs knowledge about god.

Studying God's creation provides knowledge of God.

Our space and time exists inside of our bubble. Other space and times exist within their bubbles but there was precedence in bubbles, dummy.

"Bubble" of or in what? A "bubble" in a nothing? Again: If the sum of all positive and negative energy of the universe is 0 and you would never had been a part of our universe and you would live "outside" of our universe - wherever this could be if it could be at all - then you would just simple not be able to make any interaction with our universe, because something what is without energy is not able to interact - and what is not able to interact is not existing. But also this we are not able to say. Indeed we are not able to say anything - we are only able to say nothing.

Our universe is effectively a bubble. A flat one. There may be other ones. They all had a beginning and all were created from nothing.

Our universe isn't expanding in all directions. It is fairly flat.

Both is true as far as we know. The universe is flat and it expands. The only problem I see in this context is sometimes for me that it is not clear when physicists speak only about an empty space and when they speak really about "nothing". I guess they speak about a neverending empty space, when they speak about an uncertainity relation of the nothing in this context.

It doesn't seem like nothing is that complex of a subject to understand. You are over complicating it.

Look up multiverses to understand the concept of other bubbles.

A multiverse is an idea. The only "thing" what connects other universes with our universe is logic and mathematics - but we don't have any chance to prove whether we use mathematics the right or wrong way, because experiments are not possible in this context - and we also do not know whether universes are possible which have a totally other form of logic and mathematics, which we are never able to understand for example or whether a universe exists which is without logic and mathematics at all, what would perhaps be a perfect hell. In general: What do we know about a mathematics "outside" of the universe (which has not outside)? Nothing! It's the same problem. We have nothing to say about this situation - also not mathematically. Perhaps works mathematics in this context - perhaps not. Ignoramus. Ignorabimus. We don't know it. We will not know it.

A universe created from nothing is the only explanation which makes sense and fits the observed data. So I don't discount other universes or bubbles of space and time being created in the same manner.

 

[toobfreak]

You are doing a great job arguing for the existence of something you tend to discount exists.

Now you are confusing issues. You're doing a great job at proving to me I've credited you with more smarts than you really have.

So.... since you apparently had a real education in physics, How do Astrophysicists know what happens to light as it travels through the vast distances between galaxies?

If you have access to the internet, you don't need me to explain that to you, you can go look that up on your own. I don't write technical treatises or do research projects for others for free.

 

[ding]

You are doing a great job arguing for the existence of something you tend to discount exists.

Now you are confusing issues. You're doing a great job at proving to me I've credited you with more smarts than you really have.

So.... since you apparently had a real education in physics, How do Astrophysicists know what happens to light as it travels through the vast distances between galaxies?

If you have access to the internet, you don't need me to explain that to you, you can go look that up on your own. I don't write technical treatises or do research projects for others for free.

If you had truly credited me with smarts you wouldn't have acted like a jack ass about this. I'm not the droid you are looking for.