Dark Matter; Real? Or Imagined?

[esalla]

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. ...

God created the DNA that makes you what you are, whether Ding is a schizzo or not

Let me say it this way: It was for example inevitable that electrons froze out in our universe - but I am for example here because I am an answer of this what had happened in history before I was here. This laws follow different degrees of freedom. If my biological father for example had shot down Hitler or if my biological mother would had been murdered in a concentration camp then I would not live and I would miss nothing. And DNA is for me in general only a thing which has to do with a more or less sane body. In this context the environment is very important. Blue eyes are better for the life in the North of Europe for example. They are not better for to the life in the South of Europe.

This is complete gibberish " It was for example inevitable that electrons froze out in our universe"

Take your meds

What is this what you say here? What is your alternative plausibility within natural science for the freezing out of electrons?

That you are ill and are babbling about your delusions

I fear, if you are the future of the USA then the USA is without any future. What about first to learn something about totally normal manners, before you try to "discuss" problems of natural science in context philosophy and spirituality?

Some information:
-----
The whole universe was once a hot dense sphere(TBBT anyone?). One property of hot dense spheres is that they emit radiation, sometimes called blackbody radiation[1]. Everything at a finite temperature emits this kind of radiation. Even you. However, you are so “cool” on the scale of early universe temperatures that the radiation you emit is unlikely to have too much “energy” in it(The integrated spectral function will be super small!).

Most of this radiation is emitted at frequencies(or energy) that is roughly proportional to temperature[2]. When we say the early universe was hot, we mean it was really really hot. So, most of this radiation would escape as super high energy photons. And what do super high energy photons do? They make electrons(amongst a whole bunch of other particles) of course[3]!

The above image is a Feynman diagram that roughly depicts how two high energy photons can create an electrons and a positron( the anti particle of an electron!). This diagram is to be read in the following manner:

• Everything left of the “dot” or the “vertex” is to be interpreted as an incoming particle, in this case two high energy photons in the early universe!
• Everything right of the particle is to be interpreted as a outgoing particle in this case, an electron and a positron!
• The directionality on the arrows indicate the “kind” of particle i.e particle or antiparticle. For example notice that the arrow in the lower vertex in the diagram above, has the “opposite” sense of direction that you would ascribe to a outgoing particle. This means its an antiparticle(positron!).
• The lines between the vertices are “hypothetical” particles or imaginary, book keeping particles that are thought of as intermediates. In this case, its another electron.

Cool. So far, so good. Hot universe -> very energetic radiation -> particles produced. Notice that this process can't happen in the universe any more. The universe has cooled to a ridiculously low temperature(3K). This particle production process can only happen when the incoming photons are sufficiently energetic, and hence the process occurs in very high energy situations only!

There is however a small caveat. If the universe is too hot, the two newly created electron positron pair just recombine. There is an optimal temperature when they can be created and stay created. This phase of the universe is called the lepton era(since its the phase of lepton creation!)

However, one of the long outstanding questions in physics is, if a positron is created everytime an electron is created, why do why have a matter dominated universe with mostly electrons?
-----
source: How were electrons created? - Quora

Nothing you posted is science, it is all unsupported speculation.

Basing on the theory of relativity and the fact that the universe expands.

The big band theory

If this is a joke then it is a very nice joke, but it isn't a joke, isn't it? By the way: The big bang was not big and it was no bang. It was just simple the beginning of our universe. "Suddenly" everything was here and started to evolve. But this what evolves has different degrees of freedom. Some things must exist - other things can exist or may exist. If all possible things must exist then I guess this is only realizable in a kind of multiverse.

is already dead as the expanding universe has no zero point evident that the mass spread out from,

?

The universe expands from all points into all directions. The big bang is everywhere.

so the evidence itself disproves the single point origin

Single point (whatever this is in physics) or not is not the point. The point is the expansion of the universe. Your alternative is what exactly?

The law of conservation of mass precludes the possibility of the big bang and or something coming from nothing.

Really

 

[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. ...

God created the DNA that makes you what you are, whether Ding is a schizzo or not

Let me say it this way: It was for example inevitable that electrons froze out in our universe - but I am for example here because I am an answer of this what had happened in history before I was here. This laws follow different degrees of freedom. If my biological father for example had shot down Hitler or if my biological mother would had been murdered in a concentration camp then I would not live and I would miss nothing. And DNA is for me in general only a thing which has to do with a more or less sane body. In this context the environment is very important. Blue eyes are better for the life in the North of Europe for example. They are not better for to the life in the South of Europe.

This is complete gibberish " It was for example inevitable that electrons froze out in our universe"

Take your meds

What is this what you say here? What is your alternative plausibility within natural science for the freezing out of electrons?

That you are ill and are babbling about your delusions

I fear, if you are the future of the USA then the USA is without any future. What about first to learn something about totally normal manners, before you try to "discuss" problems of natural science in context philosophy and spirituality?

Some information:
-----
The whole universe was once a hot dense sphere(TBBT anyone?). One property of hot dense spheres is that they emit radiation, sometimes called blackbody radiation[1]. Everything at a finite temperature emits this kind of radiation. Even you. However, you are so “cool” on the scale of early universe temperatures that the radiation you emit is unlikely to have too much “energy” in it(The integrated spectral function will be super small!).

Most of this radiation is emitted at frequencies(or energy) that is roughly proportional to temperature[2]. When we say the early universe was hot, we mean it was really really hot. So, most of this radiation would escape as super high energy photons. And what do super high energy photons do? They make electrons(amongst a whole bunch of other particles) of course[3]!

The above image is a Feynman diagram that roughly depicts how two high energy photons can create an electrons and a positron( the anti particle of an electron!). This diagram is to be read in the following manner:

• Everything left of the “dot” or the “vertex” is to be interpreted as an incoming particle, in this case two high energy photons in the early universe!
• Everything right of the particle is to be interpreted as a outgoing particle in this case, an electron and a positron!
• The directionality on the arrows indicate the “kind” of particle i.e particle or antiparticle. For example notice that the arrow in the lower vertex in the diagram above, has the “opposite” sense of direction that you would ascribe to a outgoing particle. This means its an antiparticle(positron!).
• The lines between the vertices are “hypothetical” particles or imaginary, book keeping particles that are thought of as intermediates. In this case, its another electron.

Cool. So far, so good. Hot universe -> very energetic radiation -> particles produced. Notice that this process can't happen in the universe any more. The universe has cooled to a ridiculously low temperature(3K). This particle production process can only happen when the incoming photons are sufficiently energetic, and hence the process occurs in very high energy situations only!

There is however a small caveat. If the universe is too hot, the two newly created electron positron pair just recombine. There is an optimal temperature when they can be created and stay created. This phase of the universe is called the lepton era(since its the phase of lepton creation!)

However, one of the long outstanding questions in physics is, if a positron is created everytime an electron is created, why do why have a matter dominated universe with mostly electrons?
-----
source: How were electrons created? - Quora

Nothing you posted is science, it is all unsupported speculation.

Basing on the theory of relativity and the fact that the universe expands.

The big band theory

If this is a joke then it is a very nice joke, but it isn't a joke, isn't it? By the way: The big bang was not big and it was no bang. It was just simple the beginning of our universe. "Suddenly" everything was here and started to evolve. But this what evolves has different degrees of freedom. Some things must exist - other things can exist or may exist. If all possible things must exist then I guess this is only realizable in a kind of multiverse.

is already dead as the expanding universe has no zero point evident that the mass spread out from,

?

The universe expands from all points into all directions. The big bang is everywhere.

so the evidence itself disproves the single point origin

Single point (whatever this is in physics) or not is not the point. The point is the expansion of the universe. Your alternative is what exactly?

The law of conservation of mass

Mass is a form of energy. Energy is not able to be produced - nor able to be destroyed - within our universe. But a form of energy is able to be transfered into another form of energy - while the entropy grows.

The "Massenerhaltung" (conservation of mass) says that in chemical reactions the sum of the masses of the substances which are combined in this chemical reactions doesn't change considerably.

precludes the possibility of the big bang and or something coming from nothing.
Really.

The sum of all positive and negative energy of the universe seems to be 0 - so it has no energy at all. If you could take a look at it from outside (but "unfortunatelly" (=fortunatelly, I guess) that is impossible, because it has no outside) you would see nothing, because it is nothing. But if you would leave our universe you would see it - because the universe is missing your mass in this case. On the other side could be in all points all around you an infinite number of universes, which you would not be able to see, as long as they don't have any energy outside of themselves. What is not in interaction is not existing - but his means not a lot in this case.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Absolutely real. It has already been imaged. Here are a few public releases of dark matter imaged around distant galaxy clusters. The red is high energy xray radiation and the blue is the dark matter.

Sorry, I don't remember details of the technique used.
Now dark energy is another matter. That is purely hypothetical to solve a problem in observation and I believe the concept is flawed.
No one knows what type of matter dark matter is, only its presence by how it affects visible matter. Maybe it is that third state from which all normal matter and energy arises.

Sorry ... that's going to need a citation then ...

What was "imaged" was a representation of gravitational effects attributed to dark matter.

 

[ReinyDays]

What was "imaged" was a representation of gravitational effects attributed to dark matter.

Sure, I got that ... I'd like to know how they came up with this though ... the red is the X-ray source, why the blue lobes? ... some kind of n-body gravity solution? ... not disputing this, just what to know more about how it was determined ...

Is this less or more compelling than the colliding galaxies data? ... "Dark Matter Can Interact with Itself, Galaxy Collisions Show" -- Space.com -- April 15th, 2015 ...

 

[esalla]

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. ...

God created the DNA that makes you what you are, whether Ding is a schizzo or not

Let me say it this way: It was for example inevitable that electrons froze out in our universe - but I am for example here because I am an answer of this what had happened in history before I was here. This laws follow different degrees of freedom. If my biological father for example had shot down Hitler or if my biological mother would had been murdered in a concentration camp then I would not live and I would miss nothing. And DNA is for me in general only a thing which has to do with a more or less sane body. In this context the environment is very important. Blue eyes are better for the life in the North of Europe for example. They are not better for to the life in the South of Europe.

This is complete gibberish " It was for example inevitable that electrons froze out in our universe"

Take your meds

What is this what you say here? What is your alternative plausibility within natural science for the freezing out of electrons?

That you are ill and are babbling about your delusions

I fear, if you are the future of the USA then the USA is without any future. What about first to learn something about totally normal manners, before you try to "discuss" problems of natural science in context philosophy and spirituality?

Some information:
-----
The whole universe was once a hot dense sphere(TBBT anyone?). One property of hot dense spheres is that they emit radiation, sometimes called blackbody radiation[1]. Everything at a finite temperature emits this kind of radiation. Even you. However, you are so “cool” on the scale of early universe temperatures that the radiation you emit is unlikely to have too much “energy” in it(The integrated spectral function will be super small!).

Most of this radiation is emitted at frequencies(or energy) that is roughly proportional to temperature[2]. When we say the early universe was hot, we mean it was really really hot. So, most of this radiation would escape as super high energy photons. And what do super high energy photons do? They make electrons(amongst a whole bunch of other particles) of course[3]!

The above image is a Feynman diagram that roughly depicts how two high energy photons can create an electrons and a positron( the anti particle of an electron!). This diagram is to be read in the following manner:

• Everything left of the “dot” or the “vertex” is to be interpreted as an incoming particle, in this case two high energy photons in the early universe!
• Everything right of the particle is to be interpreted as a outgoing particle in this case, an electron and a positron!
• The directionality on the arrows indicate the “kind” of particle i.e particle or antiparticle. For example notice that the arrow in the lower vertex in the diagram above, has the “opposite” sense of direction that you would ascribe to a outgoing particle. This means its an antiparticle(positron!).
• The lines between the vertices are “hypothetical” particles or imaginary, book keeping particles that are thought of as intermediates. In this case, its another electron.

Cool. So far, so good. Hot universe -> very energetic radiation -> particles produced. Notice that this process can't happen in the universe any more. The universe has cooled to a ridiculously low temperature(3K). This particle production process can only happen when the incoming photons are sufficiently energetic, and hence the process occurs in very high energy situations only!

There is however a small caveat. If the universe is too hot, the two newly created electron positron pair just recombine. There is an optimal temperature when they can be created and stay created. This phase of the universe is called the lepton era(since its the phase of lepton creation!)

However, one of the long outstanding questions in physics is, if a positron is created everytime an electron is created, why do why have a matter dominated universe with mostly electrons?
-----
source: How were electrons created? - Quora

Nothing you posted is science, it is all unsupported speculation.

Basing on the theory of relativity and the fact that the universe expands.

The big band theory

If this is a joke then it is a very nice joke, but it isn't a joke, isn't it? By the way: The big bang was not big and it was no bang. It was just simple the beginning of our universe. "Suddenly" everything was here and started to evolve. But this what evolves has different degrees of freedom. Some things must exist - other things can exist or may exist. If all possible things must exist then I guess this is only realizable in a kind of multiverse.

is already dead as the expanding universe has no zero point evident that the mass spread out from,

?

The universe expands from all points into all directions. The big bang is everywhere.

so the evidence itself disproves the single point origin

Single point (whatever this is in physics) or not is not the point. The point is the expansion of the universe. Your alternative is what exactly?

The law of conservation of mass

Mass is a form of energy. Energy is not able to be produced - nor able to be destroyed - within our universe. But a form of energy is able to be transfered into another form of energy - while the entropy grows.

The "Massenerhaltung" (conservation of mass) says that in chemical reactions the sum of the masses of the substances which are combined in this chemical reactions doesn't change considerably.

precludes the possibility of the big bang and or something coming from nothing.
Really.

The sum of all positive and negative energy of the universe seems to be 0 - so it has no energy at all. If you could take a look at it from outside (but "unfortunatelly" (=fortunatelly, I guess) that is impossible, because it has no outside) you would see nothing, because it is nothing. But if you would leave our universe you would see it - because the universe is missing your mass in this case. On the other side could be in all points all around you an infinite number of universes, which you would not be able to see, as long as they don't have any energy outside of themselves. What is not in interaction is not existing - but his means not a lot in this case.

Again the big bang theory claims that the mass of the Universe was created from nothing which violates the law of conservation of mass. Very simple really. There is also no cosmic void where the big bang occurred and without this the theory falls flat. In fact all theories fall so flat and wrong that some are now claiming that the Universe is a computer simulation, and since we are part of the Universe this includes us.

Tyson.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Not even a clue

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What was "imaged" was a representation of gravitational effects attributed to dark matter.

Sure, I got that ... I'd like to know how they came up with this though ... the red is the X-ray source, why the blue lobes? ... some kind of n-body gravity solution? ... not disputing this, just what to know more about how it was determined ...

Is this less or more compelling than the colliding galaxies data? ... "Dark Matter Can Interact with Itself, Galaxy Collisions Show" -- Space.com -- April 15th, 2015 ...

I thought the blue was also x-rays, just of different energies from the red parts.

 

[ReinyDays]

I thought the blue was also x-rays, just of different energies from the red parts.

Hopefully toobfreak will be back and explain ... I don't doubt it, but right now it's all "nebulous" and I'd like more information ...

 

[esalla]

I thought the blue was also x-rays, just of different energies from the red parts.

Hopefully toobfreak will be back and explain ... I don't doubt it, but right now it's all "nebulous" and I'd like more information ...

Do you think that tooby is an information source on this?

 

[zaangalewa]

... Again the big bang theory claims that the mass of the Universe was created from nothing which violates the law of conservation of mass. ...

You should read and try to understand, what others say to you - then you would had known now that it is absurde what what you say here. The natural law "conservation of mass" is a law of chemistry for the building of substances on the level of the electron shell of atoms and molecules. Example: CO2 has the mass of 2 times the mass of oxygen plus the mass of carbon - as far as I remember from school this is 2*12 + 16 = 40 measured in u (=unified atomic mass unit). Let me take a look ... Yes: Element 6 has a mass of 12.0107, element 8 has a mass of 15.9994.

The idea "god made the universe out of nothing" is a very old idea of Christian philosophers - about 1700 years old - because they found no other explanation, when they tried to understand the expression "creation". But that's not an essential of the Christian religion - it's an essential of philosophy. Augustinus said "The question 'What did god do, before he had created the world' is a senseless question, because there was no time before god had created time." "The word of creation", he said, "is a timeless word."

Astonishingly this qualifying imaginations about god and the way, how human beings are able to think, found a quantitative refresh in the theory of Albert Einstein. His theory breaks down in the very first moment of the universe. We need a new theory for this what really might had happened in the very first beginning of our worlds. But to find a new theory needs first of all a way to be ful of fantasy and intuition - it needs thousands of thoughts to find a good one. But it needs also a lot of knowledge and discipline. And I think the scientist of the future, who will bring us to a new better way to understand creation, is perhaps a very silent calm and shy person, who avoids loud and aggressive people. This man might avoid specially people without manners, because truth is the fulfilling of love.

 

[esalla]

... Again the big bang theory claims that the mass of the Universe was created from nothing which violates the law of conservation of mass. ...

You should read and try to understand, what others say to you - then you would had known now that it is absurde what what you say here. The natural law "conservation of mass" is a law of chemistry for the building of substances on the level of the electron shell of atoms and molecules. Example: CO2 has the mass of 2 times the mass of oxygen plus the mass of carbon - as far as I remember from school this is 2*12 + 16 = 40 measured in u (=unified atomic mass unit). Let me take a look ... Yes: Element 6 has a mass of 12.0107, element 8 has a mass of 15.9994.

The idea "god made the universe out of nothing" is a very old idea of Christian philosophers - about 1700 years old - because they found no other explanation, when they tried to understand the expression "creation". But that's not an essential of the Christian religion - it's an essential of philosophy. Augustinus said "The question 'What did god do, before he had created the world' is a senseless question, because there was no time before god had created time." "The word of creation", he said, "is a timeless word."

Astonishingly this qualifying imaginations about god and the way, how human beings are able to think, found a quantitative refresh in the theory of Albert Einstein. His theory breaks down in the very first moment of the universe. We need a new theory for this what really might had happened in the very first beginning of our worlds. But to find a new theory needs first of all a way to be ful of fantasy and intuition - it needs thousands of thoughts to find a good one. But it needs also a lot of knowledge and discipline. And I think the scientist of the future, who will bring us to a new better way to understand creation, is perhaps a very silent calm and shy person, who avoids loud and aggressive people. This man might avoid specially people without manners, because truth is the fulfilling of love.

Did you write all that psychobable for me? Because I do not read psychobable.

1. Do you see yourself as a great physicist even though your highest level of school was 12?
2. Are you contributing to ending ignorance in the World?
3. Do you believe that you have a special relationship with a supernatural entity. Cult leaders, for example, might believe they can communicate with a god or that they are a manifestation of a god on earth.
4. Do you believe that you have a special relationship with a famous person or authority figure, such as the president

 

[Turtlesoup]

Something that constitutes 85% of the universe shouldn't be that hard to find.

Ding has spoken! Haha

As it turns out, something that interacts with gravity but not with normal matter or light might actually be pretty hard to find.

Yes, that's what I believe. It's a fudge factor. It's totally made up. It's like the global warming hysteria. It's very convenient to invent a new kind of energy that does not coalesce into electrons, protons and neutrons.

Dark matter is not made up, but it is merely an explanation for the unexplainable. So dark matter might be real or another explanation might be found.

But you will never know

You mean its an UFO---------UNIDENTIFIED flying object (just deep in space.)

 

[esalla]

Something that constitutes 85% of the universe shouldn't be that hard to find.

Ding has spoken! Haha

As it turns out, something that interacts with gravity but not with normal matter or light might actually be pretty hard to find.

Yes, that's what I believe. It's a fudge factor. It's totally made up. It's like the global warming hysteria. It's very convenient to invent a new kind of energy that does not coalesce into electrons, protons and neutrons.

Dark matter is not made up, but it is merely an explanation for the unexplainable. So dark matter might be real or another explanation might be found.

But you will never know

You mean its an UFO---------UNIDENTIFIED flying object (just deep in space.)

Dings brain is a UFO on Earth

 

[Turtlesoup]

Dark Matter; Real? Or Imagined?
What type of matter is dark matter?
Of which particles consist dark matter?
How does dark matter arise?
What are the evidences of dark matter?

Absolutely real. It has already been imaged. Here are a few public releases of dark matter imaged around distant galaxy clusters. The red is high energy xray radiation and the blue is the dark matter.

View attachment 430828

View attachment 430829

View attachment 430830

Sorry, I don't remember details of the technique used.

Now dark energy is another matter. That is purely hypothetical to solve a problem in observation and I believe the concept is flawed.

No one knows what type of matter dark matter is, only its presence by how it affects visible matter. Maybe it is that third state from which all normal matter and energy arises.

RADIATION breaks down PROTONS (including light protons)----------ergo what you are seeing is the RADIATION (the red) creating the Dark matter (purple becoming blue.) So it isn't nothingness---------Dark Matter is the end result of broken down light protons (and other things) via radiation. Black holes aren't gobbling up planets and lights----black holes are radiation breaking down everything including light protons creating gamma energy.

 

[zaangalewa]

... Again the big bang theory claims that the mass of the Universe was created from nothing which violates the law of conservation of mass. ...

You should read and try to understand, what others say to you - then you would had known now that it is absurde what what you say here. The natural law "conservation of mass" is a law of chemistry for the building of substances on the level of the electron shell of atoms and molecules. Example: CO2 has the mass of 2 times the mass of oxygen plus the mass of carbon - as far as I remember from school this is 2*12 + 16 = 40 measured in u (=unified atomic mass unit). Let me take a look ... Yes: Element 6 has a mass of 12.0107, element 8 has a mass of 15.9994.

The idea "god made the universe out of nothing" is a very old idea of Christian philosophers - about 1700 years old - because they found no other explanation, when they tried to understand the expression "creation". But that's not an essential of the Christian religion - it's an essential of philosophy. Augustinus said "The question 'What did god do, before he had created the world' is a senseless question, because there was no time before god had created time." "The word of creation", he said, "is a timeless word."

Astonishingly this qualifying imaginations about god and the way, how human beings are able to think, found a quantitative refresh in the theory of Albert Einstein. His theory breaks down in the very first moment of the universe. We need a new theory for this what really might had happened in the very first beginning of our worlds. But to find a new theory needs first of all a way to be ful of fantasy and intuition - it needs thousands of thoughts to find a good one. But it needs also a lot of knowledge and discipline. And I think the scientist of the future, who will bring us to a new better way to understand creation, is perhaps a very silent calm and shy person, who avoids loud and aggressive people. This man might avoid specially people without manners, because truth is the fulfilling of love.

Did you write all that psychobable for me? Because I do not read psychobable.

Bye bye.

1. Do you see yourself as a great physicist even though your highest level of school was 12?
2. Are you contributing to ending ignorance in the World?
3. Do you believe that you have a special relationship with a supernatural entity. Cult leaders, for example, might believe they can communicate with a god or that they are a manifestation of a god on earth.
4. Do you believe that you have a special relationship with a famous person or authority figure, such as the president

No comment

 

[ReinyDays]

RADIATION breaks down PROTONS (including light protons)----------ergo what you are seeing is the RADIATION (the red) creating the Dark matter (purple becoming blue.) So it isn't nothingness---------Dark Matter is the end result of broken down light protons (and other things) via radiation. Black holes aren't gobbling up planets and lights----black holes are radiation breaking down everything including light protons creating gamma energy.

Those are some interesting ideas ... but wouldn't the light proton break down into light quarks? ... two up and one down ... and won't these quarks interact with electromagnetic radiation? ... I'm not saying the Standard Model is right, but you'll need to be more explicit as to what manner of particle model you are using ... preferable one that includes dark matter ...

I'm fine with æther ... a pervasive medium that allows electromagnetic waves to propagate ... as air is return to it's original state as a sound waves passes, so to does our "dark matter" æther return to it's original state as a light wave passes ... [shrugs shoulders] ... but then I'm the kind of guy who would dare to build a geocentric orrery ...

 

[esalla]

RADIATION breaks down PROTONS (including light protons)----------ergo what you are seeing is the RADIATION (the red) creating the Dark matter (purple becoming blue.) So it isn't nothingness---------Dark Matter is the end result of broken down light protons (and other things) via radiation. Black holes aren't gobbling up planets and lights----black holes are radiation breaking down everything including light protons creating gamma energy.

Those are some interesting ideas ... but wouldn't the light proton break down into light quarks? ... two up and one down ... and won't these quarks interact with electromagnetic radiation? ... I'm not saying the Standard Model is right, but you'll need to be more explicit as to what manner of particle model you are using ... preferable one that includes dark matter ...

I'm fine with æther ... a pervasive medium that allows electromagnetic waves to propagate ... as air is return to it's original state as a sound waves passes, so to does our "dark matter" æther return to it's original state as a light wave passes ... [shrugs shoulders] ... but then I'm the kind of guy who would dare to build a geocentric orrery ...

LOL according to the standard model the Universe is impossible, which is why some are branding reality as simulated

 

[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.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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".

 

[esalla]

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".

How would you know

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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".

How would you know

Same reason I am always right and you are always wrong, Franskee.