h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

My theory is the big bang could not have happend if there is dark matter if dark matter exist then it was there first and the universe was sucked in from else where I have no eucation
My theory put simple dark matter is like an ocean with a wirlpool that gose hafe way down all the stuth on the serface is sucked in it is not just drop at the bottom its spred all over the place if you look up from the bottom of the wirlpool you will see the light there you will see where the universe came from then you might get to know where its going the light at the top was what gave way to the Big bang theory . If your religes then it might be your hevan where its writen it all started

i think you will find dark matter was used as the explination as to why the size and shape of the universe don't match

science had a blank space so invented dark matter to fill it

Hoom. I like it.

I prefer Iain M. Banks' alternate theory of physics and cosmology for the origins of cyclical system of universes, as referred to in some of the Culture novels. I'm partial to that because it's so much like a "theory" I came with I was a child.

>>My theory is the big bang could not have happend if there is dark matter<<

Why?

Are suggesting that there would have been too much gravity for the Big Bang to've occurred?

>>i think you will find dark matter was used as the explination as to why the size and shape of the universe don't match

science had a blank space so invented dark matter to fill it<<

Kinda. Dark matter is inferred from the gravitational lensing of light of distant galaxies and the motion and rotational speed of local galaxies.
The the hot gravity on mass action in observable universe is too great for there not to be something other than the standard visible matter out there.

i was just keeping it simple jack

My personal suspicion on the whole "Dark Matter" / "Dark Energy" thing is that it is more likely that our current equations aren't quite correct at galactic scales.

In the same fashion that Einstein's theories showed Newton's laws as a simplification of Relativity, I think it will ultimately come to pass that Relativity may itself be a simplification of something much more bizarre and wonderful than we could have ever imagined.

It is a little disconcerting over the years how physics and astronomy have overstepped the boundaries of what can truly be perceived as known truth. Although the Big Bang so far seems to be the most compelling theory, I still consider it very much so just that .... a theory.

I'm not sold on the idea that everything began as a singularity, or that blackholes are singularities. It would seem as though since they have nothing better to go on, they have taken the math too literally. Kind of like when you get two solution to the quadratic equation, but only one of them makes sense in a physical context. Just because the universe is cleary expanding now, doens't mean that we can simply reverse the process and expect that it all began as a infinitesimal dot. Whose to say it wasn't as big as a marble, or a planet, or a sun. These are all very small on a Universe size scale. I'm sure this wouldn't effect the equations that much until they started trying to get too close to the beggining.

The problem lately is everyone keeps patching the most popular theories. For instance, they couldn't explain the measurements and calculations that should have predicted the size of the Universe, so instead they spackled the cracks of the idea with something called "the inflation period". Now they can't explain galactic movements on a large scale, so they patch it with "Dark Matter". And then they can't explain the unreasonable acceleration of the universes expansion so they patch it with "Dark Energy".

The very fact that Quantum Mechanics and Relativity don't yet mesh should be a clear indication to everyone that we haven't got something quite right yet.

This field has been stuck in a rut for over a half century now. It is time to look back at what we think we know with greater sketicism and find the spot where it all went wrong. It is time for the next Einstein to challenge the established views and lead us to the next horizon.

<<>>My theory is the big bang could not have happend if there is dark matter<<

Why?

>>

This... it's all very well saying "my theory is such-and-such" but you need to be able to back it up with an explaination!

I think sooner or later that Dark Matter/Energy will go the same way as the Dark Ages did: in that the academics will eventually realise, as more evidence is gathered (by people who are actually looking for it rather than just relying on speculation), that there's actually a whole lot more going on than their forebears realised or were prepared to admit.

<>

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11711228 Maybe not "just a theory" after all...

<>

What absolute, utter bilge. This is a golden age of astronomy/cosmology. Think of everything that's been discovered since the 1960's: pulsars, quasars, cosmic background radiation, planetary probes, extra-solar planets, the standard model of physics, etc etc.

Sheesh!

You completely missssssed the point.

I am talking about the theory, not the technology.

Even so, look at the bulk of your examples.

The Standard model of physics was largely mapped out in the early 1960's.

The first quasars were discovered with radio telescopes in the late 1950s

The Background radiation was discovered in 1964 by Penzias and Wilson.

The first Pulsar was observed in 1967.

I think you would have been hard pressed to find anyone who theorized that we would not find extra-solar planets even 100 years ago.

Basically everything you listed was done a half century

Including the first unmanned visit to the moon in 59 and the first manned visit in 69.

So I stand firmly by what I said.

"Maybe not "just a theory" after all..."


To be clear, they created "what they believe to be" the conditions shortly after the Big Bang based on conventional theory!

or more concisely

They are claiming that slamming sub-atmomic particles together at high speed and creating extremely high temperatures mimic their models for what the Big Bang was like.

Maybe,

or Maybe not.

I wasn't around for the big bang, so I can't be sure.

"They are claiming that slamming sub-atmomic particles together at high speed and creating extremely high temperatures mimic their models for what the Big Bang was like."

No, you've got that the wrong way round...it's actually...

They are claiming that their models mimic the slamming together of sub-atmomic particles at high speed, as they believe the conditions shortly after the Big Bang were like.

"They are claiming that their models mimic the slamming together of sub-atmomic particles at high speed, as they believe the conditions shortly after the Big Bang were like."

Yep, That's what I meant!

if your trying to say dark matter dose not exist then why want light
enter it

It's not a matter () of light not being able to enter it, more that it's does not reflect any of the visible spectrum.

Also, from Wonkipedia: "It has been noted that the names "dark matter" and "dark energy" serve mainly as expressions of human ignorance, much like the marking of early maps with "terra incognita"". It's not that anyone's saying it doesn't exist, more that when we have the means to observe it properly it probably won't be so "dark" any more.

All my examples are from the last half century or so. Which is the timescale you chose. Trying to separate observation from theory is totally pointless, as one informs the other. Our understanding of the universe has increased in leaps and bounds in this time.

The discovery that the universe's expansion is accelerating was made in the last 10-15 years. Messed up quite a few theories, that.

The big bang theory dose not hold true when on the other hand they
say there was nothing there befor. Where if there was a hole or some form of opening to a nother diemention coursed by maybe galaxies
in that deimention crashing through to this one,
May be at the speed this one is expanding galaxies will crash through a to some other diemention

Has any one looked at alternative so the big bang was nothing more than a rush of matter poring into a vacum so of witch crashed into each other as for the dark matter it was here its what makes this diemention it got disterb just like when you drop a stone in a pool of water

Well, there is the theory that the universe exists in an endless cycle of bang-expand-collapse-crush.

By 'dimensions' I assume you're referring to the many/parallel universe hypothesis... I don't think there's any model which allows for 'crashing through' as beloved of so many sci-fi programmes. Also, dimensions are something different in physics anyway.

<>

when they say there was nothing before, they mean the universe as we know it did not exist, so there was no where for there to be nothing

"All my examples are from the last half century or so. Which is the timescale you chose."

So had I said past 40+ years, instead of half century, you would have been fine with it? A bit nit-picky I think. Guess I'll just wait about 8 more years and reiterate the statement.

"Trying to separate observation from theory is totally pointless, as one informs the other."

Naw, only pointless if the theory ends up being wrong. Much of what Einstein did took decades and more to confirm. It didn't make what he did in 1905 any less true. There was a tremendous amount of advancement made using Einsteins theories prior to them being observationally verified.

Again my point is that Theory alone has been stalled for quite some time now. Largely because we have hit major road blocks in our ability (and in some instances the feasibility) to confirm what we think we already know. We still can't resolve Quantum Mechanics with Relativity. The standard model (although we know is largely accurate and very powerful) still has holes, We have several handfuls of String threories (for which possibly none, but at best one could be correct), Brane theories, Multi-dimensional theories (most of which are virtually and technically unverifiable). I doubt we would have bothered to build an 8 billion dollar science experiment just to tell us what already know is true.

"The discovery that the universe's expansion is accelerating was made in the last 10-15 years. Messed up quite a few theories, that."

Precisely my point! Everybody was so sure that the universe's expansion was slowing down because of what they inferred from the calculations. In other words, a well accepted theory was proven to be wrong. The only reason "dark energy" exists right now is to add a fudge factor to our equations so that they continue to give the right answers. I don't think it is any more unreasonable to think that possibly the equations themselves are the problem. This is precisely the approach Einstein took with Newton's work.

And the fact that we got the predicted expansion of the Universe wrong is exaclty why I caution against treating the details of the Big Bang as Gosphel. I believe we are overstepping our bounds as to what we can reliably infer that far back in time. We still can't reliably explain what we see in current time, much less 13.5 billion years ago.

Science has gotten too "speculative" and "inferred" over the years. I'm not by any means claiming that we haven't accomplished anything over the past several decades. We just haven't got very far with the fundamentals.

The theories have not kept up with our observations. They are stuck in a rut.

There's a very good book that deals extensively with how theoretical physics has basically stagnated since the mid-20th Century. "The Trouble With Physics"... can't remember who wrote it though. I do remember that trying to read it after 48 hours of no sleep made me cry because my brain broke.