View Full Version : Dark Matter

Dennis Archambault
2003-Nov-14, 06:20 PM
Has there been any mapping of dark matter within the constellations?

2003-Nov-15, 02:29 AM
Isn't dark matter theoretical? I'd expect the only way to find dark matter would be to use gravity calculations. But, our gravity knowledge and gear isn't sophisticated enough yet.

Actually, I'm not entirely sure what's contained by the term "dark matter". Is it non-baryonic? Does it include non-burning stars?

2003-Nov-15, 06:14 AM
yes "dark matter" is theoritical and I think the reason they came up with dark matter is because when astronomers were observing the rotation speed of galaxies. They caculated the mass of the stars and visible gas with in the galaxy and would come up with the gravity of the galaxy and they found that the galaxies are moving much faster then they should, so they came up with "dark matter" for another form that takes up mass with in the galaxy. Hopes that help a little.

If I am wrong please say so.

2003-Nov-15, 09:13 AM
Dark matter is what is thought to make up most of the universe. Some of it, a tiny fraction, could be baryonic matter in the form of planets etc, but the most part is of some other kind of matter. Or, gravity doesn't work they way we thought it did...

2003-Nov-15, 09:29 AM

http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...p?showtopic=367 (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=367)

Its a great topic all about Dark Energy/Matter. Have a look, its got a heap of info on the topic, and a nuber of links.

2003-Nov-15, 07:00 PM
Matter clumps in multiscale 3D-spiral swirls to create what we see as dark and bright matter [1].

1. Savov, E., Theory of Interaction the Simplest Explanation of Everything, Geones Books, 2002. You may see also Occam’s razor at http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/...eral/occam.html (http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/General/occam.html)

2003-Nov-16, 04:18 AM
Not at all theoretical as far as i am concerned.

There is mass there that we cant see. By definition its Dark Matter.

Of course, its the nature of dark matter that is the problem.

Baryonic? Non-Baryonic? Dark Energy? Miniscule Black Holes?

etc etc


2003-Nov-16, 04:29 AM
We're not sure what Dark Matter is. It is believed that black holes and neutrinos make up a fair amount, but the estimates show that there just isn't enough black holes/neutrinos to account for all of the dark matter.

2003-Nov-16, 04:32 AM
Yes, you find that the vast vast majority of Dark matter is Dark energy.

Youll be lucky if black hole and neutrinos make up 0.000001%.


2003-Nov-16, 12:16 PM
Isn't Dark energy what is thought to cause the acceleration of the expansion of the universe?

2003-Nov-21, 08:59 PM
Sure, and both dark matter and dark energy are needed to explain something that is missing from the equations used to describe the Universe. When the rotation profile of galaxies was compared to it's mass there was something missing. But what is really missing, is an understanding of what is the most important state of matter in the Universe: plasma. Plasma doesn't behave like anything we know and one of it's strange properties is that it can move matter around, both charged and (very important) neutral matter. Space isn't empty, and that is exactly where all the theories go wrong, they describe space as an empty, neutral void between islands of matter. Instead there is a vast amount of current around in the Universe. We can see the currents as Birkeland Currents; ropelike structures that form enormous filaments (look at Hubble's image of the Lagoon Nebula), kept together by it's electromagnetic fields. It can condense normal matter through the "Z-pinch" effect to form stars and only then gravity can take it's role as the weak force that it is. Gravity is infinitely weaker than the electric force (by 40 orders of magnitude!) and electricity can explain why the galaxies are not behaving the way our theories predict and why we need unknown "Dark" forces to reconcile reality with theory.