# Dark Matter Makes Up 80% of the Universe.



## 64K (Aug 6, 2014)

I'm a little confused by this. If it's matter and it causes a gravitational effect then it must have mass so why wouldn't it be able to absorb light.

http://arstechnica.com/features/2014/07/dark-matter-makes-up-80-of-the-universe-but-where-is-it-all/


----------



## Sasqui (Aug 6, 2014)

That, my friend, is the answer they are trying to find.  What is it and why does if affect gravity but seemingly nothing else?


----------



## Drone (Aug 6, 2014)

*90%* of all matter in Andromeda and Milky Way is dark matter


----------



## Sasqui (Aug 6, 2014)

Here's a great article on it:   http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

This is mind blowing:

"The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be called "normal" matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the Universe."

In the context of e=m*c^2 (Mass and energy are different forms of the same thing):

"One explanation for dark energy is that it is a property of space. Albert Einstein was the first person to realize that empty space is not nothing. Space has amazing properties, many of which are just beginning to be understood. The first property that Einstein discovered is that it is possible for more space to come into existence. Then one version of Einstein's gravity theory, the version that contains a cosmological constant, makes a second prediction: "empty space" can possess its own energy. Because this energy is a property of space itself, it would not be diluted as space expands. As more space comes into existence, more of this energy-of-space would appear. As a result, this form of energy would cause the Universe to expand faster and faster. Unfortunately, no one understands why the cosmological constant should even be there, much less why it would have exactly the right value to cause the observed acceleration of the Universe. "


----------



## SKBARON (Aug 6, 2014)

I though the distribution of stuff in the universe was something like: 
5% visible matter
about 25% dark matter
and 70% dark energy

Did something change for it to be 80% dark matter or was it a mistake in the article?


----------



## Ahhzz (Aug 6, 2014)

matter=unspent energy


----------



## Sasqui (Aug 6, 2014)

SKBARON said:


> I though the distribution of stuff in the universe was something like:
> 5% visible matter
> about 25% dark matter
> and 70% dark energy
> ...



The NASA article says "roughly" 67% is dark energy.  Close enough!


----------



## 64K (Aug 6, 2014)

SKBARON said:


> I though the distribution of stuff in the universe was something like:
> 5% visible matter
> about 25% dark matter
> and 70% dark energy
> ...



The article I linked to must be wrong. I would trust the NASA article that Sasqui linked to more.


----------



## Drone (Aug 6, 2014)

"distribution of everything in the universe" is not the same as "distribution of matter in the universe"

everything = dark matter, dark energy, matter, energy, antimatter
matter = dark matter, matter

distribution of everything in the universe means 2/3 is dark matter
distribution of matter in the universe means 80-90% is dark matter, 20-10% normal matter and antimatter


----------



## patrico (Aug 6, 2014)

Ahhzz said:


> matter=unspent energy


i like to look at it as condensed energy, like matter is the water and energy is the steam, i like your take on it too 


we are in  big holographic tv screen powered by eletrons, played by the creators and its running super sim universe13 on an open source op sys  hehe


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 6, 2014)

patrico said:


> we are in big holographic tv screen powered by eletrons, played by the creators and its running super sim universe13 on an open source op sys hehe



http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847


----------



## Sasqui (Aug 6, 2014)

W1zzard said:


> http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847


----------



## Ahhzz (Aug 6, 2014)

patrico said:


> .....
> we are in  big holographic tv screen powered by electrons, played by the creators and its running super sim universe13 on an open source op sys  hehe


My controller keeps making me pick my nose at weird times of the day.....


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 7, 2014)

We know that there's a lot of invisible debris in between solar systems in galaxies.  That could account for a lot of dark matter.  It is too far from any light source to be visible and too small to obstruct the view from distant light sources.  The question is what is between galaxies, if anything?  That space is much more vast than the space in galaxies.


----------



## Steevo (Aug 7, 2014)

W1zzard said:


> http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847


I was sold by the smiley face. 


Particle wave duality and the fact that according to its findings photon's are a mere probability wave until we observe them and collapse them into a particle that interacts would be awesome if not for the pesky trees, but perhaps they are a simulation of the probable interaction with a energetic particle given the output from calculated sources in the equation also.


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 7, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> We know that there's a lot of invisible debris in between solar systems in galaxies.  That could account for a lot of dark matter.  It is too far from any light source to be visible and too small to obstruct the view from distant light sources.  The question is what is between galaxies, if anything?  That space is much more vast than the space in galaxies.


If I remember correctly normal unlit matter was excluded somehow, don't remember the details.

Space between galaxies can't account for dark matter, which has to be clumped up around the center of galaxies, so that rotational velocities of the outer stars work out properly (the underlying reason why dark matter was invented)


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 7, 2014)

If the entire basis for dark matter is the behavior of galaxies then I say it isn't matter at all that is responsible because gravity is not responsible.  Whatever establishes the parameters of a galaxy likely moves the fabric of space and time entirely as well as having immense gravity.  Think of gravity as a sphere but the effect on space/time as more of a torus.  Perhaps we'll learn if even medium stars like our own have its own torus effect as Voyager travels deeper into space.  If it does, Voyager may be unable to leave because it is unpowered.

It could also explain why solar systems tend to be flat as well.  Perhaps the same star stuff that allows a star to be born in small quantities allows a galaxy to be born in large quantities.  I never bought the idea the stars could haphazardly form out of cloud of gas.  Something has to have caused the gases to coalesce otherwise why would it not form a gaseous planet like Jupiter? This same stuff is what also may make the fusion heart of a star tick.  When a star dies, the same stuff is responsible for forming a new star out of the debris.

Think a black hole but as a force of construction instead of destruction as Hawking likes to make it.


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 7, 2014)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve
http://www.cool-science.ca/article/3360

Jupiter almost became the second star in our solar system, if it had only gotten more mass (1 star per solar system is actually quite uncommon)

and a star dying provides is one way to disturb nearby gas clouds to form a new solar system. btw, electrostatic attraction is a big factor, too, to have matter clump together, besides gravity.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Aug 7, 2014)

Sasqui said:


> Here's a great article on it:   http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/
> 
> This is mind blowing:
> 
> ...



So it sounds like its just space stacking within itself. 

Also I'm sure this isn't an answer, but if it weren't the right value we wouldn't be here to observe it. Since we are here, we can observe it and it happens to be just right.


----------



## Drone (Aug 7, 2014)

patrico said:


> i like to look at it as condensed energy



matter / energy .. after all it's just an illusion created by strings or branes in hyperdimensions. The main hero here is the spacetime itself. It's all about resonances and vibrations sounds pervy I know


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 7, 2014)

W1zzard said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve
> http://www.cool-science.ca/article/3360
> 
> Jupiter almost became the second star in our solar system, if it had only gotten more mass (1 star per solar system is actually quite uncommon)
> ...


Let me start over...

"Dark energy" is on the verge of being dispelled by way of "gravitational waves." They operate by expanding space-time itself.  So, if this proves true, could the astrophysics need for "dark matter" be eliminated by taking the same concept and placing an object in the center that these waves are attracted to?  The further out they get, the more energetic they become up to a limit presumably established by the properties of the object in the center?  It may, in fact, be the opposite: the same waves responsible for expanding the universe are being caught and decelerating as they approach the galactic core.  Not very likely seeing as there doesn't seem to be any order to the orientation of galaxies. No matter how the rotation of "gravitational waves" is achieved, can they not explain the rotation of galaxies?

Edit: Actually if you think of a black hole for gravitational waves, it pretty much fits perfectly.


----------



## Drone (Aug 7, 2014)

nice video


----------



## Drone (Aug 10, 2014)

Is cosmic radiation the dawn of new physics or statistical slip-up?

Interesting article to say the least


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 10, 2014)

Not really.  The limitations of our perspective can always skew results.  It is nigh impossible to prove how skewed it is until it can be studied from a different perspective.


----------



## mpc755 (Aug 12, 2014)

Dark matter is not a clump of stuff traveling along with the Milky Way.

The Milky Way is moving through and displacing the dark matter.

This is why the Milky Way's halo is lopsided.

The displaced dark matter pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward the matter.

Displaced dark matter pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

What is referred to as deformed spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the dark matter.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 12, 2014)

That really doesn't explain why it is lopsided.  Think of putting something in water (matter).  The pressure is exerted on it from all directions, not just two.  In order for that to be true, the core must be exerting its own force presumably on only two axis.  That poses its own problem by implying that the entire galaxy has dark matter in between the solar systems.  In which case, should the solar systems not exhibit the same lopsided shape?  Ours really doesn't.  Moreover, it would presumably cause spiral to slow, especially furthest from the center when the opposite is true (the furthest away from the galactic core are generally moving the fastest excepting those in the galactic core, of course).

I think the shape of the halo closely resembles a magnetic field that presumably would be stretching extending Sagittarius A* (or whatever has it in a permanent hold).


----------



## Drone (Aug 12, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Not really.  The limitations of our perspective can always skew results.  It is nigh impossible to prove how skewed it is until it can be studied from a different perspective.


Wrong. Error correction doesn't require different perspective. Never did, never will.


Anywho...


A possible signal from dark matter

Gotta be some sterile neutrinos


----------



## mpc755 (Aug 12, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That really doesn't explain why it is lopsided.



The Milky Way's dark matter halo is lopsided due to the Milky Way moving through and displacing the dark matter.

'The Milky Way's dark matter halo appears to be lopsided'
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3802

_"Basically, the emerging picture of the dark matter halo of the Milky Way is dominantly lopsided in nature."_

'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1475

_"Our data strongly support the idea that the gravitational potential in clusters is mainly due to a non-baryonic fluid, and any exotic field in gravitational theory must resemble that of CDM fields very closely."_

The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through and displacing the dark matter. The analogy is a submarine moving through the water. You are under water. Two miles away from you are many lights. Moving between you and the lights one mile away is a submarine. The submarine displaces the water. The state of displacement of the water causes the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water to be offset from the center of the submarine itself. The offset between the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water displaced by the submarine and the center of the submarine itself is going to remain the same as the submarine moves through the water. The submarine continually displaces different regions of the water. The state of the water connected to and neighboring the submarine remains the same as the submarine moves through the water even though it is not the same water the submarine continually displaces. This is what is occurring as the galaxy clusters move through and displace the dark matter.


----------



## mpc755 (Aug 12, 2014)

The major problem facing mainstream physics is that for some strange reason it can't rid itself of the notion dark matter is a clump of stuff traveling along with galaxies and galaxy clusters.

Here we have evidence of Einstein's deformed spacetime in the Milky Way's dark matter halo. However, since physicists consider to the idea of dark matter as a clump of stuff traveling along with the Milky Way as religious dogma they can't see the evidence of deformed spacetime staring right at them.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 12, 2014)

mpc755 said:


> The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through and displacing the dark matter. The analogy is a submarine moving through the water. You are under water. Two miles away from you are many lights. Moving between you and the lights one mile away is a submarine. The submarine displaces the water. The state of displacement of the water causes the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water to be offset from the center of the submarine itself. The offset between the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water displaced by the submarine and the center of the submarine itself is going to remain the same as the submarine moves through the water. The submarine continually displaces different regions of the water. The state of the water connected to and neighboring the submarine remains the same as the submarine moves through the water even though it is not the same water the submarine continually displaces. This is what is occurring as the galaxy clusters move through and displace the dark matter.


One problem: light doesn't travel 2 miles in water.  It diffuses to the point it isn't observable on the other end.  If dark matter is as pervasive as astrophysicists that subscribe to it say it is, proof should be in abundance of its existence.  Instead, it's like a string, membrane, and whatever theory is being applauded now.  Einstein proved that things really aren't so complicated.  I would argue that there's forces unknown when dealing with galactic cores and ascribing it to "dark" or "black" anything prevents thinking outside of the box where the answer likely lies (case in point: E=mc^2).




mpc755 said:


> The major problem facing mainstream physics is that for some strange reason it can't rid itself of the notion dark matter is a clump of stuff traveling along with galaxies and galaxy clusters.
> 
> Here we have evidence of Einstein's deformed spacetime in the Milky Way's dark matter halo. However, since physicists consider to the idea of dark matter as a clump of stuff traveling along with the Milky Way as religious dogma they can't see the evidence of deformed spacetime staring right at them.


Everything massive deforms spacetime and whatever is at the center of the galaxy is undeniably massive or it wouldn't have a grip hold on all of the stars around it.


----------



## mpc755 (Aug 12, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Everything massive deforms spacetime and whatever is at the center of the galaxy is undeniably massive or it wouldn't have a grip hold on all of the stars around it.



'Comment on the higher derivative Lagrangians in relativistic theory' 
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5759 

_"Einstein theory of gravitational fields and this gives a new perspective on the Mach principle revisiting the “absolute” acceleration concept as a natural motion in space-time deformed by the matter-energy contained therein. We refer the reader to the paper of Einstein on a related topic [9]. The relativistic theory of an Aether was discussed several time, see for e.g. [8], [9]. In this paper, our hypothesis is different and gives a relativistic theory of the deformation of continuous media (for which the geometry is described by the metric field)_." 

The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of continuous media.

The Milky Way's halo is the defromation of spacetime.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the dark matter.

What is referred to geometrically as deformed spacetime is the state of displacement of the dark matter.


----------

