Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

People Say I Don't Have Proof Of Another Universe


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Vmedvil

Vmedvil

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 370 posts

Posted 11 January 2018 - 05:16 AM

Well, Dark Matter is a non physical substance that has mass, mass is the substance of all matter, if there is a part of dark matter that doesn't interact then it could very well be the matter from another universe, that we feel as mass pressure against ours universe brane, how otherwise can you explain a non physical substance with different matter constants that you feel in this universe. This universe is layered on top of ours.

 

48384.jpg

 

How Dark matter is different in structure from our normal visible matter, Dark Matter is missing a charge force that normal matter has, and Dark Matter is behaving like mesons instead of Normal Matter Triplets.

 

96906-004-FB4A8411.gif

 

 

Our matter is shaped spherical because of electrons being negatively charged and going around the neutrons and protons, the protons being the positive charge they are orbiting in a sphere like path.

 

 

 

 

 

 

f697b9c85537605d80e4635cf9a409cfab329649

 

Now the missing part of Dark Matter is the Q or charge dimension.

 

 

 

Now the Dark Matter behaves in a stringlike behavior like the wave. 

 

Etotal Energy volume=3hf/4πR3

 

or just EDM=hf like a photon. 

 

 

The Size they  are over is Lp/tp = C , for wave behavior like a Boson or Pion.

 

slide_3.jpg

 

They have a gravity component equal to their Velocity "Relative Mass" and Rest Mass, which causes Einstein Field Curvature equal to that or the Newtonian Equivalent. 

 

91963-004-10EE1D21.gif

 

This shows the wavelength and Frequency as a fraction of C. as Lp2/Tp2 = C2

 

 

The mass can be found with Newtonian's equation 

 

2000px-NewtonsLawOfUniversalGravitation.

 

Now, the mass need to also be contracted as density increases with movement.

 

Srlc1.png

 

by the Equation of mass contraction.

 

relativity5.gif

 

I did also want to note the Mass numbers for rest mass can be found here.

 

http://www.slac.stan...papers/L002.PDF

 

 

I want to note that photons also have zero charge along with travel in a straight path in stringlike or wavelike behavior as a electromagnetic wave.

 

S237W.png

 

I think that dark matter particles cycle on the flavour or Colour Force Dimension that constructs their matter field. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.../List_of_mesons

 

260px-Eta-decay.png

 

These are like the Gluons but connected gluon and antigluon if it is the SNF.

 

Otherwise, if it is the flavour dimension it cycles from RED.BLUE,GREEN while its antiparticle cycles anti-RED.anti-BLUE,anti-GREEN

 

 

And I want to note as always Dark Energy and Dark Matter have nothing to do with each-other other than missing a dimension both being bosons or fermions without a Dimension. I think Dark Energy may be missing the SNF or Higgs Field because it expands space unlike normal matter or dark matter which contract it due to their Positive Mass so it must have a Tachyonic Mass or Negative Mass the Dark Energy.


Edited by Vmedvil, 11 January 2018 - 03:25 PM.


#2 DaveC426913

DaveC426913

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 89 posts

Posted 22 April 2018 - 01:48 PM

 

Our matter is shaped spherical because of electrons being negatively charged and going around the neutrons and protons, the protons being the positive charge they are orbiting in a sphere like path.

 

Electrons do not orbit the nucleus. They certainly don't follow circular paths. The electrons do not "follow a path" of any sort.(As a charged particle, if they followed a path, changing their angular momentum, then they would emit EM radiation, just like moving a magnet near generates current in a wire. This would cause the electron to lose energy and fall into the nucleus.)

 

This model has been debunked for a hundred years.

 

Look up electron orbitals. They describe the shape of the probability cloud of where an electron might be found when observed. 

 

It behooves you to study up on the latest physics before trying to move forward with your own ideas.


Edited by DaveC426913, 22 April 2018 - 01:50 PM.


#3 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1842 posts

Posted 22 April 2018 - 02:17 PM

Electrons do not orbit the nucleus. They certainly don't follow circular paths. The electrons do not "follow a path" of any sort.(As a charged particle, if they followed a path, changing their angular momentum, then they would emit EM radiation, just like moving a magnet near generates current in a wire. This would cause the electron to lose energy and fall into the nucleus.)

 

This model has been debunked for a hundred years.

 

Look up electron orbitals. They describe the shape of the probability cloud of where an electron might be found when observed. 

 

It behooves you to study up on the latest physics before trying to move forward with your own ideas.

Aha, I see you joined up in spite of my description of some of the clientele! 

 

It will be good to have another sensible person around. 



#4 DaveC426913

DaveC426913

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 89 posts

Posted 24 April 2018 - 08:17 AM

Aha, I see you joined up in spite of my description of some of the clientele! 

 

:D

Took it as a challenge.



#5 Vmedvil

Vmedvil

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 370 posts

Posted 18 May 2018 - 02:32 PM

Electrons do not orbit the nucleus. They certainly don't follow circular paths. The electrons do not "follow a path" of any sort.(As a charged particle, if they followed a path, changing their angular momentum, then they would emit EM radiation, just like moving a magnet near generates current in a wire. This would cause the electron to lose energy and fall into the nucleus.)

 

This model has been debunked for a hundred years.

 

Look up electron orbitals. They describe the shape of the probability cloud of where an electron might be found when observed. 

 

It behooves you to study up on the latest physics before trying to move forward with your own ideas.

 

Yes, of course, they are probability cloud the orbit is around the atom but they are in a spherical like shape, I do actually know what that is..........



#6 DaveC426913

DaveC426913

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 89 posts

Posted 28 May 2018 - 07:23 PM

 but they are in a spherical like shape,

No.

 

s-orbitals are spherical; the rest are not even close to spherical.

 

 

EHl1o.png


Edited by DaveC426913, 28 May 2018 - 07:23 PM.


#7 Farsight

Farsight

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 455 posts

Posted 29 May 2018 - 02:15 PM

Look up electron orbitals. They describe the shape of the probability cloud of where an electron might be found when observed. 

An electron is not a "probability cloud", and nor is it a point particle. Note that in atomic orbitals electrons "exist as standing waves". Kick an electron out of an atomic orbital, and the electron still exists as a standing wave. An electron is an electromagnetic standing wave. That's why it's the wave nature of matter, and why we can perform electron diffraction and electron refraction. Google on de Broglie standing wave.   


Edited by Farsight, 29 May 2018 - 02:18 PM.


#8 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1842 posts

Posted 29 May 2018 - 02:19 PM

Electrons do not orbit the nucleus. They certainly don't follow circular paths. The electrons do not "follow a path" of any sort.(As a charged particle, if they followed a path, changing their angular momentum, then they would emit EM radiation, just like moving a magnet near generates current in a wire. This would cause the electron to lose energy and fall into the nucleus.)

 

This model has been debunked for a hundred years.

 

Look up electron orbitals. They describe the shape of the probability cloud of where an electron might be found when observed. 

 

It behooves you to study up on the latest physics before trying to move forward with your own ideas.

Yes indeed, electron orbitals describe the shape of the probability cloud. Very nicely expressed.



#9 Farsight

Farsight

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 455 posts

Posted 29 May 2018 - 02:33 PM

It's the wave nature of matter. Not the probability-cloud nature of matter. The notion that the electron is some probability cloud is popscience I'm afraid. 



#10 DaveC426913

DaveC426913

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 89 posts

Posted 03 June 2018 - 01:38 PM

An electron is not a "probability cloud"...

 

 

The notion that the electron is some probability cloud...

 

No one said it was. Certainly not I.

 

The orbital defines the probability cloud of where it will be found.



#11 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1842 posts

Posted 03 June 2018 - 01:49 PM

No one said it was. Certainly not I.

 

The orbital defines the probability cloud of where it will be found.

Just so. 



#12 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1198 posts

Posted 04 June 2018 - 08:00 AM

Well, Dark Matter is a non physical substance that has mass, mass is the substance of all matter, if there is a part of dark matter that doesn't interact then it could very well be the matter from another universe, that we feel as mass pressure against ours universe brane, how otherwise can you explain a non physical substance with different matter constants that you feel in this universe. This universe is layered on top of our

 

 

Let's stop right here for a minute. You are trying to "prove" the existence something we can't observe (another universe) by assuming the existence of something else we can't observe (dark matter)?

 

How does that work?



#13 DaveC426913

DaveC426913

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 89 posts

Posted 21 June 2018 - 11:13 PM

Let's stop right here for a minute. You are trying to "prove" the existence something we can't observe (another universe) by assuming the existence of something else we can't observe (dark matter)?

 

How does that work?

 

Not that I want to lend credence to Vmdevil's ideas but - just because we can't see DM with light, doesn't mean we can't observe it. The Bullet Cluster is considered direct evidence of DM.



#14 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1842 posts

Posted 22 June 2018 - 12:57 AM

Not that I want to lend credence to Vmdevil's ideas but - just because we can't see DM with light, doesn't mean we can't observe it. The Bullet Cluster is considered direct evidence of DM.

Quite. I've come across this misconception elsewhere, too.

 

We have a lot of observations (galactic rotational curves, lensing) indicating that the gravitation of galaxies is greater than can be accounted for by the visible mass of the stars (i.e. of the mass that radiates). So we have plenty of evidence there is something with mass that does not radiate, for which the term "dark matter" is a placeholder.