NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok I am trying to grasp this concept here and I need alittle help. If its not completely accurate please correct it and then explain it ^.^

Currently scientists are trying to calculate the weight of a galaxy. And they cannot do it. There is something called Dark Matter (a term they coined to explain the extra mass). Now it seems to me like Einstiens gap in his cosmological model to his quantum physics model. Nothing is adding up so he created the Cosmological Constant to account for his static universe (but we now know its not static). So is this Dark Matter along the line of his Cosmological Constant.

And another question. I forgot where I read it but it dealt with how everything is based around these small strings that vibrate. And in order to properly explain it. And where excess energy is spent we go from 4 dimensions (height, depth, width and time) to a total of 10 dimensions. Now these extra 6, how would they factor into a universe before the big bang, if such a question could even be answered?

Also would it be possible to somehow borrow this energy that is stored in these extra dimensions. To lets say give us access to FTL. Or to build clean and unlimited power sources?

And where excess energy is spent we go from 4 dimensions (height, depth, width and time) to a total of 10 dimensions. Now these extra 6, how would they factor into a universe before the big bang, if such a question could even be answered?

As I understand it before 'the big bang' there were no dimensions. As for your other questions I have no idea.

Well the theory was when I last checked that upon the big bang 6 dimensions collapsed and we where left with 4 that define our current universe.

Ok I am trying to grasp this concept here and I need alittle help. If its not completely accurate please correct it and then explain it ^.^

Currently scientists are trying to calculate the weight of a galaxy. And they cannot do it. There is something called Dark Matter (a term they coined to explain the extra mass). Now it seems to me like Einstiens gap in his cosmological model to his quantum physics model. Nothing is adding up so he created the Cosmological Constant to account for his static universe (but we now know its not static). So is this Dark Matter along the line of his Cosmological Constant.

And another question. I forgot where I read it but it dealt with how everything is based around these small strings that vibrate. And in order to properly explain it. And where excess energy is spent we go from 4 dimensions (height, depth, width and time) to a total of 10 dimensions. Now these extra 6, how would they factor into a universe before the big bang, if such a question could even be answered?

Also would it be possible to somehow borrow this energy that is stored in these extra dimensions. To lets say give us access to FTL. Or to build clean and unlimited power sources?

Dark Matter/Energy are for a similar purpose as the Cosmological Constant, but they correspond to different numbers, and while the Cosmological Constant is purely mathematical Dark Matter and Energy are thought to be actual substances.

As for the dimensions thing, our set at least were born with the big bang, and you can't get the energy from them because the energy needs to be there for physics to work.

Well the theory was when I last checked that upon the big bang 6 dimensions collapsed and we where left with 4 that define our current universe.

I may be wrong about this, but as I understand they collapsed to mini-dimensions spun around the bigger ones like the outside of a wire. So they're still there, just small.

I may be wrong about this, but as I understand they collapsed to mini-dimensions spun around the bigger ones like the outside of a wire. So they're still there, just small.

Yeah. If we could some how learn to borrow energy from these mini dimensions we would be set. Since these mini dimensions are beyond our perception, does not mean they are not suitable for use some how. And if can pull energy from these mini dimensions since they are ever lasting we would have unlimited energy.

Ok I am trying to grasp this concept here and I need alittle help. If its not completely accurate please correct it and then explain it ^.^

Currently scientists are trying to calculate the weight of a galaxy. And they cannot do it. There is something called Dark Matter (a term they coined to explain the extra mass). Now it seems to me like Einstiens gap in his cosmological model to his quantum physics model. Nothing is adding up so he created the Cosmological Constant to account for his static universe (but we now know its not static). So is this Dark Matter along the line of his Cosmological Constant.

And another question. I forgot where I read it but it dealt with how everything is based around these small strings that vibrate. And in order to properly explain it. And where excess energy is spent we go from 4 dimensions (height, depth, width and time) to a total of 10 dimensions. Now these extra 6, how would they factor into a universe before the big bang, if such a question could even be answered?

Also would it be possible to somehow borrow this energy that is stored in these extra dimensions. To lets say give us access to FTL. Or to build clean and unlimited power sources?

This is one of the things that is wrong with our current science climate... "Dark Matter" is bad science... there is no 'evidence' on which to build an assumption... just a LACK of explanation.

"Huh, the amount of 'mass' in the universe doesn't fit my calculations... the answer must be....... DARK MATTER!!!"

Bad science... I have no time for it.

That was what I was trying to say. Dark Matter serves no reasonable explaination. So they invented to make their calculations fit. Like Einstien did with his Cosmological Constant.

For one thing, a cosmological constant is needed, they don't know what it is yet though and it will pretty much show the fate of the universe. They think it's one though...

At any rate, I think it's dark energy that's the really weird stuff. Dark matter is stuff like black holes that aren't absorbing anything, brown dwarfs, dead white dwarfs et c. Just stuff we can't see but would be out there naturally.

A Cosmological constant is not always needed. Depending on what sort of model you are using the constant is not there. A cosmological constant most often is needed in static models. But we know the universe is not static but in motion.

There are 3 possibilites concerning universal expansion.

1. The galaxies move closer together and collide. There is another explosion that is similar to the big bang. They dont know if everything will reform or not. Though I like ramifications of this one. How many times has the universe regenerated this way? How long as this cycle gone on? And is there a potential for the explosion not to produce a new universe?

2. It is the big freeze. The galaxies drift so far apart everything slows down and freezes. So we have a whole lot of nothing.

3. The universal expansion slows down. But this way we still get the big freeze it just comes much later.


The fascinating things I like the most are the Qusars. The varying star catagories. The recent findings on Titan which would possibly contain liquid oceans.

But lets not forget our own planet. Like the methane worms at the bottom of the ocean. Or Lake Vostok in antartica. The place where we will find other sentient life will be in our oceans not on some distant world. Life in the water began almost immediately after the planet cooled enough to support life. With billions of years of development what could have be created in the deepest parts of the oceans?

But the thing is if the water had no nutrients in it then the first rains would have begun the process of erosion. The early oceans would have a very high salt content. So most life would have been squid like things. I perfer to think intelligent life would be like that in the movie "The Abyss." But for evolution to take place there needs to be something to cause it to happen. Are the factors needed for sentience found in the water?

Drak Matter.

It is not such bad science as has been claimed above. It is a theoretical explanation for the difference in the mass calculations for a galaxy resulting from using a rotation method and using a radiation method. See here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/deepspace/darkmatter/index.shtml) for a laymans explanation.

There has also been discovered, recently a dark galaxy, I am trying to track down some info on this. Will post a link when I find it.

Edit: OK, Astronomers find a starless galaxy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/south_east/4288633.stm) , so much for it being bad science.

This is one of the things that is wrong with our current science climate... "Dark Matter" is bad science... there is no 'evidence' on which to build an assumption... just a LACK of explanation.

"Huh, the amount of 'mass' in the universe doesn't fit my calculations... the answer must be....... DARK MATTER!!!"

Bad science... I have no time for it.

Not true. There is in fact evidence that such dark matter exists. We have measured the speed of some stars in the outer parts of galaxies, and they are NOT what they should be. The only known explanation as of yet is the 'dark matter'.

Besides, dark matter isn't very hard to understand. It's just material that's not being lit up by fusion. In other words, neutron stars, black holes, and clumps of matter (for example, planets, some can even be multiple times the mass of Jupiter) that don't contain enough material to begin fusion.


As to dimensions, one theory is that there are still all 10 (or more) dimensions, and that most are too small for us to detect. However, we know that gravity is a very weak force, and one hypothesis is because it is stretched out through all ten dimensions.

It hurts my brain to think in a 10 dimensional space. All our physics models are based off of 4. You twist space (like a black hole does) and it alters the flow of time. You compress something it begin to weigh more and it becomes more dense. But with at least 6 extra dimensions that would be a whole new form of science.

Drak Matter.

It is not such bad science as has been claimed above. It is a theoretical explanation for the difference in the mass calculations for a galaxy resulting from using a rotation method and using a radiation method. See here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/deepspace/darkmatter/index.shtml) for a laymans explanation.

There has also been discovered, recently a dark galaxy, I am trying to track down some info on this. Will post a link when I find it.

Edit: OK, Astronomers find a starless galaxy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/south_east/4288633.stm) , so much for it being bad science.

Are you religious? I have to ask, because you seem willing to take a lot on faith.

The problem is that Dark Matter is not verifiable. What we have is a situation where two calculations are made to estimate the mass of a galaxy. If those calculations do not match, the difference requires explanation.

How about considering, for a second, that there is a flaw in the concept of comparing mass by those calculations? Oh, I'm not saying the computations are incorrect, or that there are logic flaws in the math - but PERHAPS it is impossible to get rational results from the two procedures compared?

After all, not one single galaxy has matched so far, as far as I know. So - apparently the math never works.

Even if the calculation method should turn out to be valid - and there is no way to prove THAT assumption until a galactic body DOES fit the comparison - there are OTHER explanations for some of the phenomena, that do not involve 'dark matter'. We MIGHT be witnessing an interactive force that we have yet to explain, that might be skewing our results.

The problem with Dark Matter is that it is now part of the 'institution'. It has been theoretical so long, that people are accepting it as fact, despite the fact that it has never been observed.

That, is bad science.

Not true. There is in fact evidence that such dark matter exists. We have measured the speed of some stars in the outer parts of galaxies, and they are NOT what they should be. The only known explanation as of yet is the 'dark matter'.


The only known explanation.... see my problem? Dark Matter has no evidence... it is hypothetical, an attempt to explain disparity. As such, it is no more valid than suggesting that the universe in 90% soup.

There are other explanations... but one theory has been put forward, and people have let it rest there.

But, for example - let's just look at what you are saying there: "We have measured the speed of some stars... and they are NOT what they should be." Well, the first assumption that we should maybe make, is that perhaps our OTHER assumptions have been flawed. They are not what they SHOULD be? Who says? We base that conclusion upon the assumption that we KNOW what they should be.

Dark Matter covers a myriad of sins.


Besides, dark matter isn't very hard to understand. It's just material that's not being lit up by fusion. In other words, neutron stars, black holes, and clumps of matter (for example, planets, some can even be multiple times the mass of Jupiter) that don't contain enough material to begin fusion.


Even neutron stars and blackholes should give measurable emissions, if current theories are correct... just maybe not much in the visible spectrum.

Perhaps, Dark Matter really IS the answer. But, at the moment, there is far too little evidence (i.e. NO objective evidence) that there IS any Dark Matter.

Dark Matter is a 'god of gaps'.