Dark Matter

[Aqueous No.5362596]

I have a theory which I believe may explain Dark Matter/Dark Energy, expansion, and potentially time to some degree.
However, I'm not a physicist.
I'd like to run my theory by someone who could potentially expand upon it or rule it out if it's illogical.
any takers?
I promise it's not a crackpot theory

[Anonymous No.5362600]

go on...

[Anonymous No.5362599]

>>5362596
Why the fuck would you start a thread with "does anyone want to know my theory?" Just fucking post it so we can laugh at you.

[Anonymous No.5362611]

>>5362596
>I'm not a physicist
>it's not a crackpot theory

[in/q/uisitor [Tetra Koiwai] !5P0TETRAO2!!hepukiaX4WX No.5362621]

dark matter is not respondsible for universal expansion. God is. but i'll take off my islamic beliefs for a moment and play your game op.

first:

>how could a substance that acts as an adhesive to galaxyes and the universe at large be accreadited to its expantion?
>what is the difference between dark enegry and matter?
> and finally could we curb the expantion through dark energy thus minipulate time?

>if we could we'd be able to travel outside our own universe

[in/q/uisitor [Tetra Koiwai] !5P0TETRAO2!!hepukiaX4WX No.5362636]

>>5362611
are any of us truly scientist, let alone intellegent on a universal scale?

please go on op.
>my ADHD is starting to flare, brb coffee

[Anonymous No.5362648]

>>5362621
I won't respect your beliefs because I think you're retarded.

[Anonymous No.5362651]

>>5362636
> intellegent on a universal scale?

Yes, I am.

[Aqueous No.5362643]

I don't believe that Dark Matter can be measured or detected... but I do believe it exists.
I'm not saying it's immeasurable, what I think is that it can only be measured at the edge of the universe.
Here is my theory touching only on on the major points:
our universe exists inside/is a black whole in an external universe. This is is a theory I'm sure you've all heard before, but let me continue.
after the collapse of the star which bore our universe, I believe that additional matter it accretes expands our universe. however, this would only be measurable at the event horizon or membrane between our universe and an external one.
an visual analogy would be something like this:
picture a soap bubble. the air inside the bubble is our universe, and outside is the universe within which ours resides.
if you were to somehow increase only the surface area of the bubble itself, it would appear to an observer within that everything was moving apart equally.
should I continue or is this already retarded?
tell me honestly because I have no idea if there is any credibility to this idea

[Anonymous No.5362669]

>>5362651
Prove it.

[Aqueous No.5362679]

>>5362621
>how could a substance that acts as an adhesive to galaxyes and the universe at large be accreadited to its expantion?
the answers to your other questions may answer this clearly enough
>what is the difference between dark enegry and matter?
I believe that dark matter is simply matter in an external universe which has been accreted to the event horizon of a black hole residing in this external universe which contains our universe as well as countless others, and that dark energy is the expansion we experience in our universe as the surface area of the even horizon in the external universe increases with previously mentioned accretion. if this doesn't substantially answer your first question I can elaborate.
> and finally could we curb the expantion through dark energy thus minipulate time?
no, but not necessarily impossible
>if we could we'd be able to travel outside our own universe
who said we can't? if you could you might be able to control expansion and time as you previously asked.. but I'm not sure what the applications of that would be. If you had that kind of technology I'm not sure that would be your primary interest

[Aqueous No.5362683]

>>5362643
bumping for brains to think harder than mine can about this

[Anonymous No.5362696]

> I have a theory
> post hypothesis/"deep thought"

learn 2 science, please

[Anonymous No.5362699]

OP, you can measure dark matter using gravitational lensing.

What we're having trouble with is detecting individual dark matter particles. This is because they are "dark," IE they have no electromagnetic interactions.

[Aqueous No.5362718]

>>5362699
that's what I meant, there aren't particles to detect, not in our universe anyway. The only interaction occurs at the edge of the universe.
My theory is based on the holographic principle.

[Aqueous No.5362749]

>>5362696
>uses sarcasm to appear smart
>doesn't make actual comment on theory

NO U

[Aqueous No.5362775]

so does anyone here actually prefer thinking over pretending to be smart?
I really believe there is something to this that could connect a few dots for someone far smarter than myself

[Anonymous No.5362818]

>theory
>mfw a bullshit popsci faggot opinion on something you know nothing about is being called a "theory"
>in science, theories are usually ideas that have been tested and accepted to be true throughout the majority of the community
So how's Biology 1 going, kiddo?

[Anonymous No.5362824]

>>5362718
They don't interact electromagnetically, but they DO interact gravitationally, that's why we think they are there.

If you would explain the holographic principle, that would be good. My 30 seconds on wikipedia inspires me to think it's a way of getting information on 3-d interactions from observing a 2-d surface, rather than 2-d interactions influencing a 3-d manifold.

[Anonymous No.5362875]

>I have a theory
>I'm not a physicist
YOU DON'T HAVE FUCKING SHIT YOU HAVE AN UNPROVEN CONJECTURE YOU HAVE A FUCKING CRACKPOT CONJECTURE
EVERY FUCKING TIME /SCI/ EVERY TIME

[Anonymous No.5362916]

>>5362643
Hmm. Interesting. I have heard the theory that we're in a black *hole already.
Are you implying that the dark energy/matter is caused by matter being sucked into the black whole?

[Aqueous No.5362954]

>>5362824
the holographic theory is a theory that suggests the universe is a hologram which is projected from a 2 dimensional edge where all information of its contents is contained.
like I said I'm not a scientist, you'd probably gain a more detailed understanding from Wikipedia to be honest.

>>5362875
>>5362818
fine, it's a "hypothesis," not a theory.
the entire nature of my post was based on exactly what you pointed out, I want people who ARE physicist to put my hypothesis to use, since I never will.
It's a riot how narrow minded so called "analytical" people often are.
I will never be as good at math as a physicist, and a physicist will never be able to visualize anything, period, as well as I can.
at least, that's what the Johnson O'Connor Research Center's test results would seem to indicate when I scored perfectly on their spatial acuity tests.
I never tried to hide the fact that I'm not an expert in this field, but I offer a perspective that may help those that are.
I swear, this board is just a bunch of know-it-alls that can't see beyond themselves.

[Anonymous No.5362992]

>>5362954
>It's a riot how narrow minded so called "analytical" people often are.
Let's get something clear, if you don't have either the math or empirical proof, you don't have fucking shit. No matter what crazy idea you may have had.
What you have is the equivalent of saying "what if things were like this" and avoiding any of the logical ramifications of what would happen if it was so, while also providing no evidence either mathematical or empirical to why things would be so in the first place.

In science we have things that are empirically true, but we can't derive logically from anything, and we call them laws.
Then we have things that we deduce logically from the laws, and we call them theories.

If your idea is neither empirically proven nor logically deducted, it's not science.

[Aqueous No.5362994]

>>5362916
yes, sort of. once the matter has been attracted close enough the black hole that it becomes part of it's event horizon it would increase the surface area of the black hole.
I think this is also key to galactic formation, there must be a fundamental difference between the initial matter that a star consists of when it collapse, and matter that is subsequently attracted to the black hole.
you could look at this as "space" and "negative space" I suppose. The matter in our universe is in this case, the "space," and the void between is the "negative space."
however, I don't think that "negative space" is really empty, it just appears that way from our perspective.
Since there is a finite amount of matter in the universe, it must have always existed in some form.
I believe this finite matter is the remnants of the star that bore our universe, and this is what I am referring to as "space".
however, it could not have existed as matter initially. there must be a certain amount of "negative space" to allow formations of "space" whether its a single particle or a galaxy.
once the blackhole containing our universe had accreted enough external matter, what I am referring to as "negative space", the first particles could form and I believe it is by this same process that larger structures such as galaxies form.

[Aqueous No.5363014]

>>5362992
yeah I don't care, you're just proving my point.
I made this thread for SCIENTISTS. to use SCIENCE. Because I stated MYSELF, that I can't. If trolling is the name of your game go ahead and continue ranting like a pissed of teenager, otherwise go have a wank over how "smart" you are, since you're contributing nothing to my thread.

[Anonymous No.5363028]

>>5362643
Are we supposed to be the interior of a black hole before or after it all gets crushed to a singularity?

Anyway, the expansion of the universe isn't just something that happens at the edge, so yes, the idea is already retarded.

[Anonymous No.5363033]

>>5363014
>Make up some shit to fit my baseless idea about a subject I know nothing about
Yeah, that's not how research works.
I'm amazed you can't grasp the basics.

[Anonymous No.5363040]

>>5362994
Hmm. Neat. But, dark matter is visible within our universe already. That's why see Einstein rings, because its gravity bends the light. So what accounts for that? And also, like >>5363028 said, the stars are getting farther and farther from each other. The matter/energy entering from outside the of the black hole wouldn't account for the increasing speed that are pushing stars away from each other.

[Aqueous No.5363048]

>>5363028
my hypothesis is based on the Holographic Principle.
you didn't read my previous analogy I guess, so here it is:
picture a bubble of soap. inside the bubble is our universe, the bubble is the edge of our universe.
the world outside the bubble is an external universe.
From the perspective of someone outside the bubble in this external universe, the bubble appears to be a black hole, and the soapy membrane is its event horizon.
Now, if you were to increase only the surface area of bubble's membrane, it would appear to anyone inside the bubble (in our universe), to be expanding in all directions equally, while to anyone in the universe outside the bubble, it would just look like black hole was growing.

to answer your other question I am suggesting that our universe is the interior of a star after it has collapsed. I wouldn't call it a singularity, that just sounds like another word for "?" to me.

[Anonymous No.5363058]

>>5363048
Except the stars are getting farther and farther apart at a faster rate. This would make sense if the matter/energy was being injected into the middle...?
If you add only to the outer edge of the universe ,how would they be speeding up?

[Aqueous No.5363064]

>>5363040

recent measurements seem to indicate that supermassive blackholes actually grow at an accelerating rate, just as our universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate. I do not think this is coincidental.
dark matter is not visible in our universe.
I see no reason why interaction at a holographic universal membrane between matter and dark matter couldn't account for gravitational lensing.

[Anonymous No.5363076]

>>5363014
OK OP here's the deal.
If you want an idea to have merit in the scientific community, you have to be able to devise an experiment that will prove what you are saying (at least to some degree).
Your hypothesis takes into account spatial expansion, which is currently explained by many physicists as the effect of dark energy. So you take into consideration a situation - what goes on inside a black hole - and use it as a way to explain the nature of expansion, and the genesis of dark energy, as well as the creation of our local universe (though not of the "universe at large"). Interesting hypothesis, it fits some of the questions raised by current observations well and in fact some physicists already have made this hypothesis. That is all I can really say about it.

Typically, you would need to either create a very complicated mathematical model based on this hypothesis, take the calculations you garner from it and attempt to predict the existence of all the observations we have currently made in this universe, OR find some astronomical clue that lends credence to your hypothesis - like the motion of Mercury lending credence to the theory of relativity. The problem with dark energy, and say "the edge of the universe", is that these things cannot be observed (with the exception of the EFFECTS of "dark energy"). And barring that, to get any respect for a theory, regardless of the merit it may have, one must apply the scientific method to it, else it just becomes a game of "what if." I realize you came to this board to have someone do that for you, but it ain't gonna happen. I suggest you look up some of the literature already published on the idea that our universe is within a black hole, it would give you the deeper perspective you might be after.

[Aqueous No.5363130]

>>5363076
could you give me a suggestion on some literature to read?
I was really just looking to see if there was any potential promise to my hypothesis which from what you are saying it seems there may be.

[Anonymous No.5363154]

>>5363130
I'm afraid I don't have any literature on the subject myself, you would have to look into it yourself. There are articles online about this but they only go into cursory detail, like this one http://www.insidescience.org/content/every-black-hole-contains-new-universe/566

if you go through a few of those, you may find a physicist who has written a book. I remember an AMA on le reddit a while back about a guy who wrote a book on that subject, but I'm afraid I don't remember his name.

[Anonymous No.5363201]

>>5363058
>Except the stars are getting farther and farther apart at a faster rate. This would make sense if the matter/energy was being injected into the middle...?

No; you're thinking in a contained and limited volume of space.
If matter were being injected to the center of the universe, then everything nearby would be slowing, because of gravity, except the distant stuff.

>If you add only to the outer edge of the universe ,how would they be speeding up?

Gravity. If matter appears at the outer 'edges' of space, then the matter nearer outer edges would be drawn away from center.

[Anonymous No.5363207]

>>5363201
So this guy's idea is possible then?
Still, then, what would dark matter be?

[Anonymous No.5363218]

>>5363048
>Now, if you were to increase only the surface area of bubble's membrane, it would appear to anyone inside the bubble (in our universe), to be expanding in all directions equally, while to anyone in the universe outside the bubble, it would just look like black hole was growing.

You've only created a fantastic universe outside our space --
what this describes is just that the sphere is growing, and from inside looks like the sphere is growing -- where is the explanation?
(Inside a black hole space is not relative in the ways necessary for this to be possible. There are many laws which cannot operate; we cannot be inside a traditional black hole or gravitational anomaly.)

>to answer your other question I am suggesting that our universe is the interior of a star after it has collapsed. I wouldn't call it a singularity, that just sounds like another word for "?" to me.

Singularity is a point; it can have no space nor content. It may not exist, however; it was an extrapolated 'destiny' for the collapsing black hole mass.

[Anonymous No.5363229]

>>5363207

Not as it stands, no.

Yes, there are ways for matter to appear spontaneously, and if that can happen in some areas of space more than others, perhaps there is a gravitational reason for that expansion.

The dark matter problem isn't just 'where' but 'what' -- we do not detect anything yet.
Matter deforms space, reflects energies; but perhaps it doesn't have to.
Physics would smooth out a lot of problems discovering dark matter, and yes, it is possible that expansion may be partially explained by it.

[Dex No.5363302]

I figure i might as well throw my theory in here.
Our 'universe' is a wave.
Dark matter is merely the absense of our universe in between arcs/other universes waving about ours/the omniverse.

[Anonymous No.5363342]

>>5363064
>recent measurements seem to indicate that supermassive blackholes actually grow at an accelerating rate
They don't. Some will but most galaxies are not active, they were in the past but they are not now. Lots of AGN eventually switch off inducing our own. Growth is random, it depends on what's going in, if that stops it stops growing.