Now that the junk has been cleared from the board...

Dark matter and dark energy are thought to comprise 96 percent of the mass of the universe. This has generated speculation as to what form of substance(s) makes up their composition. I propose that dark matter and dark energy are both made up of the material that we commonly call "dark". We all know what dark is from personal experience. Dark is the stuff (in the sense of the German word "Stoff") that we see when we turn out the lights. Dark is not the absence of light. Dark is a material made up of particles having mass so if dark energy and dark matter are made up of dark, that alone explains why they have mass.

"Dark is also heavier than light."
http://www.techsfiles.com/darksucker.htm

For further enlightenment:
http://pw1.netcom.com/~rogermw/darksucker.html

I once had a teacher,
That made me question light,
His theory was simple
And it could be right.-Mark.
http://www.innerfire.org/mt/archives...rk_sucker.html

You haven't been reading Dicsworld books have you?

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Are you proposing that there are any conservation laws for 'dark'?

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

*scratches his head*
Dark matter and dark energy are "dark"?

At what point do they become 'dark'? I mean, on a moon-lit night, it's 'dark' but not pitch dark. shadows are 'dark' do shadows have mass?

If 'dark' is mass, then where does that mass go when you turn on a light? does a room gain darkmatter if you wear sunglasses?

if 'dark' was darkmatter and had mass, then why isn't the earth's rotation thrown askew by the dark side?

just some thoughts.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

hhm in the diskworl pratchett states that dark isn't hte opposite of light it is just it's absence, so there must be some unknown 'opposite'

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

hhm in the diskworl pratchett states that dark isn't hte opposite of light it is just it's absence, so there must be some unknown 'opposite'

hey, I ToSeeked someone.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Diskworld is a gap in my education that possibly ought to be filled but I am not from that generation.

Dark is hard to conserve. People keep wasting it all the time.

So what is the speed of dark? Is it even a speed at all?

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Dark has been dark since before the FIAT LUX.

The dark mass gets sucked into the light bulb and drained off to the power station.

In our solar system the sun is up in the sky so towards the sun is "up" and away from the sun is "down". The dark side of the Earth is heavier so the dark side is always away from the sun.

The room stays the same but your eyes get heavier because the glasses don’t let the dark escape. I like my eyes heavy. I often close my eyes just to check for leaks.

It between light and plaid.

__________________
If it's just us, it seems like an awful waste of space.
Contact Carl Sagan

http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

Light is instant and does not have a speed. Dark is even faster than that- dark is instanter.

http://www.techsfiles.com/darksucker.htm
"Stroboscopic photography has proven that the process of dark refilling a room occurs much faster than the process of dark being sucked out of a room. (This is why it is believed that dark travels faster than light)."

since
plaid^2=dark^2+light^2

__________________
If it's just us, it seems like an awful waste of space.
Contact Carl Sagan

http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

Bob. I had read this 'darksucker' concept awhile back, and although I found it interesting (The only version I read was the girl and her dad, and dad's comments in relation to how insightful she was/is), BUT that was before I had solidified some of my concepts on this.

Now, I am much more inclined to think that the situation is exactly opposite of what this/you are showing!

That is, that the 'base element' (call it Higgs, or whatever floats anybodies boat!!!) that 'makes up all of space', is coming from MBH's and is traveling at "C", and that that is the carrier of the photons. SO it is non-baryonic and goes right through everything and is collisionless with itself as well.

SO, light/photons are at rest/inertial/sitting still and being carried by the Planck length Non-baryonic DM at "c". SO, Light is only emitted at the source, has no speed of its own and is carried away from the souce at the speed of "C">>>>>>>>>>>>> NOW, this matches Einsteins speed of light in Vacua Empty universe means NO Baryonic Matter, BUT it would be 'space' that was at a constant of "C". This should mean that 'time' is formulated (probably imbedded in Minkowski) incorrectly somehow, but I can't pin down where.

SO, when you turn on a light in dark room, the light is only being emitted from the bulb, and the darkness is carrying that light away from it in ALL directions at "C". So, when you turn off the light, the bulb immediately stops emitting and the light is gone at 186,000 miles in a sec.

What do you think?

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Obviously not.

*scratches head some more* (darn lice! j/k). I always knew the power-supplyers of the world were hoarding all my darkmatter! Those jerks!

As for the earth thing, i was really expecting the "light matter and dark matter have the same mass so there's no difference" But i like your theory better. It's much more woo-wooish that way.

And I personally hate having heavy eyes. That's why I had all the fluids replaced with helium, so they don't weigh my face down.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

Now that the junk has been cleared from the board...I took a look at some of the other threads and I must agree.

I posted an article from Bell Labs stating that light is the absence of dark. If you can’t believe Bell Labs, who can you believe?
Your description of the "base element" (Higgs field or whatever) floats my boat but there appears to be some cargo to throw overboard.

If the "base element" makes up all of space, then it has nowhere to go since it is already there so it is hard to think of it as traveling at c.

If our universe is closed that means that the universe has a gravitational density strong enough to prevent anything from escaping- even light. That is a BH by most definitions so our universe may be the MOABH. The Mother of All Black Holes. You don’t need another MBH to explain the origin of the "base element". It is just there as a part of everything else.

In your setup, it appears that photons carry energy and the "base element" carries photons. So why not get rid of the middle man? We never observe light as photons. We only see light as an electron to electron exchange of energy. One electron gains energy as another loses energy. We never see anything like a photon traveling through the vacuum of space. We can’t shoot photons down or find the wreckage when they crash at Roswell. Photons may be tiny UFOs for people who don’t believe in big UFO’s and the belief in one is just as obstinate as the belief in the other when faced with a lack of evidence. We don’t need photons.

Time is found in Minkovsky space as a fourth spatial dimension. We have length, width, height, and duration. The constant c is also found in Minkovsky space as the space between two points divided by the time between two points. The c=s/t in this case is simply a constant in 4-D space-time and not necessarily the speed of anything. Space-time isn’t going anywhere either because it is already there.

in the 2nd link the author points to the original joke having been written by himself (Roger M. Wilcox). "the classic darksucker joke"

later he calls attention to another author (who he says is producing non-canonical theory/humour) and in reference to that he again gives the game away in one of his objections....ie: "There are many things wrong with this hair-brained theory. For one, I didn't come up with it."

***************************

Yes quite a bit of cargo is right! But this undoubtedly will cause a HUGE problem in QM!!! As far as I can see, there is all the baryonic matter, electrons (Oops, sorry Celestial Mechanics), protons, neutrons, and then there is ONE Non-baryonic Dark Matter "base element" that 'goes right through' all baryonic matter. SO, that would mean that there will be a big fight over which is the 'right element'...I know...here comes Eta C and trinitree!!!
But, I can actually tell that with the CDM galaxy halo "Hypothesis". They make the assumption that it needs to be 'slow', more massive than a proton, and then 'trace' it back to the early universe, and 'somehow' those halos were able to magically be 'curved' into spherical entities to 'attract' the hydogen/helium. Heck, if you put enough things in the 'primordial early universe', they are much harder to falsify! Science keeps indentifying things in specific environements (which is fine, and what science is supposed to do!) BUT, that is only answer the 'what', and until science can find the 'how'...the mechanism...all theories should remain Hypotheses and ALL avenuesshould remain open UNTIL the mechanism is found!!! the Hubrus has definitely gotten way out of hand; of course that's just my opinion...I could be wrong.

If that 'base element' is coming into our Voids (where we definitely see space 'FlOWING'; is it actually expanding the space between the clusters, making that Void larger and carrying galaxies with it?, I am not sure!), and has been for X billions of years, traveling at "c", collisionless withitself, then there is nothing to stop it from traveling to infinity, as far as I know. This 'base element' flowing at "c", Collisionless, and traveling in ALL directions in a straight line inertially (No baryonic gravity), all throughout space validates Einsteins SR that the speed of light in a vacua (Empty space; means no Baryonic Matter) is "c". SO, since All of space is made up of this 'base element' traveling at 'c', it is the 'extra gravity' (For galaxy rotation curves and clusters) and all of space is a background gravity field! And it is totally "INERT".....it going through our bodies right now in prodigous amounts. it makes up 'most' of the gravity of earth and all massive bodies, that is why gravity is soooo weak!

Do you mean closed in the FLRW model? IF Einstein was/is correct, and that something more than Newtonian physics is required to describe how our universe works, then a 'singular' answer is almost certainly needed to explain it! However, is the shrinking of the universe down to a point and then showing a "Schwarzchild" solution from 'ANY" very early 'time' 10^-43...whatever. with a 'spherical horizon', that is NOT an explosion, BUT 'somehow' causes TeV Gamma Radiation....The answer?

See here for some questions about that
Schwarzschild radius

Actually, I now believe I can show that NO Black Hole solution can have a Spherical Event Horizon.

Since the black hole solution for the universe as a whole doesn't work, you actually need MBH's 'outside' to "Leak Gravity" (the 'base elements') to our Voids. Again, all this 'base element' 'space' is a gravity field, BUT it is absolutely "INERT" and so NEEDS TeV Energy Gamma Radiation to "UNLOCK" the Energy potential that is inside of each time Higgs particle according to E=mc^2. That is how the electrons and protrons get their mass, and then it becomes the Hydrogen/Helium. SO, since all of space is gravity, then, when the progenitor of SMBH's go BOOOOOOM, that explains HOW they (SMBH's) have millions/billions of sol masses of gravity!

http://physics.harvard.edu/people/facpages/randall.html

NARRATOR: Randall tried to calculate how gravity could leak from our membrane Universe into empty space, but she couldn't make it work. Then she heard the theory that there might be another membrane in the eleventh dimension. Now she had a really strange thought. What if gravity wasn't leaking from our Universe but to it? What if it came from that other universe? On that membrane, or brane, gravity would be as strong as the other forces, but by the time it reached us it would only be a faint signal. Now when she reworked her calculations everything fitted exactly. Our Bold.


http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...4&postcount=66
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
What if the other universes are not so "unobservable" after all? What if we have misinterpreted the observations, and the force we interpret as "dark matter", is really, gravity leaking out of the other universes, and into ours? I can readily imagine a multi-universe theory, which includes such an effect, and therefore is not simply "consistent" with observation, but actually predicts the observed effects we call dark matter & dark energy, as consequences of the communication of information between universes.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

And the "HUGE" problem is…?
You leave me confused since your comments appear to be the tail ends of previous discussions without the preliminaries. I am trying to understand how light works between a lamp and a desktop within the dimensions of a room before moving on to higher dimensions of multiverses and leaking branes.
Anyone who wants to give it a try can explain the primordial universe by adding enough ingredients to the soup. This gives us a sense of power. And, since the complexities are hard to falsify, this keeps the hubris level high.
I have a problem imagining travel at 'c' in all directions.Yes, I meant closed in the FLRW model or more broadly as inescapable by any means.
It sounds like you have another question but I don’t know what it might be.
If you shrink the entire universe down to a single point, then that single point would be as large as the entire universe. The point would be the entire universe and what would a point look like at that scale? Would it be a totally homogenous universe? The point is, relative to ‘What?’ can the universe shrink or expand. The universe can only be measured relative to some internal absolute of size since we don’t have a ‘god’s eve view’ of what the universe might look like from the ‘beyond’. I find a single point universe too bizarre to contemplate.
You have totally lost me again.
An unobservable universe sounds like an oxymoron or something impossible like kosher bacon.

I described the basics by saying that there is baryonic matter, and the only ONE non-baryonic DM 'base particle'.

What did you mean by...Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom
[Your description of the "base element" (Higgs field or whatever) floats my boat but there appears to be some cargo to throw overboard.]

Okay, let's just stick to this for now.

Yes, I had the hardest time with this myself!

We know tha DM is collisionless with itself and/or baryonic matter and we know that for all intents and purposes it is "Inert" (No EM interaction), SO there is vitually nothing to stop its straight line motion/velocity of "c", so if all of 'space' was made up of Non-baryonic DM ccoming into the Voids, at "c", THEN it would have to be 'spewing in' AT ALL angles, and once in straight line motion, it couldn't be altered in SR (No baryonic gravity yet).

Now, the hard part is really 'trusting' that it is collisionless, because in my mind anything that was traveling at "c", so closely packed together, in a straight line in every direction 'would have to collide somehow'!!! I think the answer must have to do with the fact that they are sssssoooooooo tiny 10^-33 that there is no surface to be able to collide, or it may go all the way to 'string' theory to explain.

So, light/photons are only emitted at the source, and the 'base element' that makes up all of 'space' and is going through our bodies and the entire room, earth, stars everything, at "c", is carrying that light away in ALL directions at "c"

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

The space between galaxies, intergalactic space, is filled with a tenuous plasma with an average density less than one atom per cubic meter. This plasma is a form of Emission. And galaxies are arranged into sheets and filaments surrounding vast empty voids. Galaxies have "two or one dimensional" gravitational spreads which will work as "surface tension" for forming large scale bubble structures without a help from "dark matter or dark energy".

And a new thory of the separation force;
Fm = m • am Fm is Force for mass. m is mass and am is acceleration for mass.
then;
Fe = e • ae Fe is Force for energy. e is energy and ae is "acceleration" for energy.
But light can not be accellerated over c or
light speed is constant in the vaccum space.
So "acceleration" should be in a different way.

Fe cΔt = ΔE = ΣhΔν then Fe = ΔE / cΔt = Σ(h/c) (Δν/Δt) = Σ(h/c) ν'
ν = frequency and h = Planck's constant
e = Σh ν finally Fe = e ν'/(cν)
This means ae = ν'/(cν) , which is the frequency acceleration.


http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/galaxy/galaxy01.html
Iori Fujita

Your description of a collisionless, non-baryonic "base element" making up "all of space" with a Minkowsky space-time geometry makes sense as a connection between the source of light and its reception. But, when you go into greater detail about this "base element" as a swarm of Planck length DM particles of SMBH origin moving at c in all directions carrying photons, this begins to sound like a Rube Goldberg contraption for the transmission of light made up of dubious and speculative components. These dark matter particles carrying photon particles is the excess baggage part of the theory along with the string theory and multiverse connections.The properties of dark matter are well understood. It is invisible, non-reactive, noiseless, colorless, tasteless, odorless, hypoallergenic, and has no known toxicity so it is easy to trust that dark matter is surfaceless and collisionless as well. It is not so easy to think of dark matter as a universal "base element" made up of particles traveling in all directions at c and serving as a carrier for photons. I would think such a cloud of particulate matter would have some ether-like properties that could be detected by a M-M type apparatus.How do these particles get the energy to accelerate photons from place to place without slowing down?

Is this separation force a repulsive force away from the center of the "vast empty voids" or an attraction towards the galaxies at the "bubble" surface?

Good.

The Non'baryonic DM making up 'all of space' eliminates Dark Energy, and yes, mainstream has actually found the Aether/medium that is necessary for GR to work, they just don't know it because they have the initial conditions (what the Planck singularity can and cannot do) confused. Planck singualrities cannot produce Gamma Radiation, NOR can they expand "SPHERICALLY"!
Can a Planck singularity in a SMBH expand or release Gamma radiation? NO...even when the event horizon is gone? NO

All Planck singularities can do, is release "Planck length/size non-baryonic DM".

That is being call 'extra gravity' when you look at galaxy rotation curves or cluster dynamics, BUT it is 'all of space' and is also going through ALL the stars, planets, you, me, the earth and everything on the earth, including the room you are in, and carries the photons from your light bulb, all throughout the room in every direction.

As for the MMX, I have been trying to get this across to grav as well.

Since the DM is traveling at "C" in every direction, how would the MMX be able to see a prefered frame???

They NEVER considered that the Aether/medium was traveling at the same speed the light was!!! They were looking for light traveling at "c" on a medium that was slower than "c"...'a river'!

Here's the thing. Since this shows that the speed of light is "c" in an empty universe (No baryonic matter), filled with non-baryonic matter at "c", that is "INERT" (energy of each tiny particle locked inside), BUT still having a 'mass/gravity', this is a gravity field that is virtually dimensionless.

SO, that upholds part of SR...the speed of light is "c" in vacua (full of Non-baryonic DM BUT NO baryonic matter), BUT it is NOT really light that is traveling at "c" (Light is just sitting still, being emitted from the source), it is 'space'...the non-baryonic DM that is really the constant "c"!

That actually means that everything is going to have to be refigured from first principles, and here is the perfect example of some of that and why...I am NOT saying that this 'theory' is entirely correct, BUT that the concept of it is right and that it will take all the PHD'ed scientific community to band together to figure it out correctly!

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103076


Now, since it goes through EVERYTHING, nothing can slow it down or stop it
ACCEPT a SMBH can curve it so much that it must follow that curve into its depths. AND baryonic clumped matter (Stars and planets) can cause it to curve slightly (Only slightly because it is going soooooo fast..."c").

And the best way to see that is here...
Dark Matter in the Sun?

This link below fixes the last link from the page above.

So, when you look at this pic again and read the explanation...
Universal Dimensions
Please, when you bring this up, just just 'reduce' the window so just the picture can be seen, so when you are reading below, you can see the picture.

Everybody, if you look at the picture, just take that gray graphed 'plane', tilt it approximately 90+ degrees so it lines up with the curved arc of light from the star (Visualize the correct size planet so the dent is curved properly to fit the arc). Now, move that star (where the light is being curved) to 12 oclock, 10 oclock, 7 oclock (if the planet were a clock with hands), and that plane will be there for any position we look at.

NOW, 'that plane' from any position of that star close enough to the planet to curve that light, IS the non-baryonic dark matter traveling at "c", being curved, carrying that light to you.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Where does the dark mass that gets sucked into the Sun go (to be drained off)?

Before a particle-antiparticle pair meet and turn into a pair of photons, where was the dark?

What is the difference between dark matter and dark energy, in terms of their dark content?

I've gotten a good laugh from this thread and I feel ashamed . I am hoping that Bob A has the answers and I'm betting he does.I am not trying to answer for Bob but I want to make a prediction about what his answer will be. It seems clear that the dark mass is sucked into the Sun and sloughed off as photons which then hide the dark until they are ultimately sucked up by black holes restoring the natural dark state.

I think the non-baryonic medium "space" you described would be more plausible if it had a wave-like nature rather than being made up of particles. Waves can appear to move rapidly in multiple directions at a fixed rate of speed without anything actually moving from place to place. This is difficult with particles. A wave-like background medium "space" could also explain the wave nature of light.
I have two or three theories like that myself with exactly the same problem.
I can EXCEPT that explanation.

I can EXCEPT that explanation too. With contributions like that, we may not need the whole PHD’ed scientific community to figure this out.