I may have figured out Dark Matter and a Unified Theory

Science and Technology
61

Does the force of a giant star collapsing allow 3D mass to sneak into the 4th dimension …creating 4D mass?

62
You are wrong on dark matter

Dark Matter can still exist …but it is only inside black holes, it is virtual mass without the ability to ever be observable.


 

Really? You can say this with certainty based on the text of a link obviously meant for consumption by the public who is the least possibly informed on the subject? And, I may add, when they get to the part about what dark matter is, the explanation starts out “We believe most of the dark matter is composed of new particles smaller than atoms that are different from anything scientists have ever detected and studied.” Notice the “we believe” and “different from anything scientists have ever detected”. This is scientific speculation. There is no test for this. This idea has not been evaluated and confirmed. “We believe” absolutely does not equal “you are wrong”. In fact, in science “this happened” does not equal “you are wrong”, it only equals, “you are wrong, so far as we understand it”. This, at best, is “we believe you to be wrong, but have no evidence to support that”.

In astrophysics the math is changing all the time. We have directly observed a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of a percent of the universe, mostly in a “big picture” sort of way. If the math is saying there are invisible unicorn particles simply because “there must be” and not because there is any actual evidence of them it is actually more likely that the math is wrong than that unicorn particles exist.

You are pissing me off because you obviously haven’t read everything I wrote in this thread. The link you shit on was just an example of decay not happening when they expected it.
Okay, if you can't handle a difference of opinion maybe you shouldn't be posting lofty ideas.

As for “the link I shit on”, I didn’t shit on the link, it was your interpretation of the contents of the link I disputed. Let me refresh your memory.

Matter Waves not decaying is another avenue to my theory. Matter Waves that don’t decay are not using spacetime.
That is what you said. "Matter waves not decaying". Read that article. Find ONE instance of the term "matter waves". Find ONE instance where it says "no decay", "not decaying", "don't decay" or any similar term. There is NOTHING in that article about "matter waves not decaying", which is exactly what I pointed out when I said this:
I think you had better read the article you linked again. It made no mention of matter waves, nor did it at any point say there was “no” decay. It said simply that the decay did not follow the known rules and that it could reorganize itself into its pre-decayed state.
How is that "shitting" on the link to say that I believe you interpreted it wrong because it makes no mention of anything even closely resembling the language you used?

Let’s be honest with ourselves here. If either of us really had the skills to create or evaluate a scientific theory we wouldn’t be posting it on a forum, we would be publishing it in a scientific journal. Unlike you in my very first post I acknowledged that my credentials were lacking. If you’re expecting anyone here to read your posts and say, “Wow! You are so smart! We should fire all the physicists everywhere until you teach them real physics!” it’s not going to happen. Do you know what you have here? It’s not a theory. It’s not an hypothesis. It’s an opinion. I have this whole big idea about the workings of the universe too, and I would LOVE some physicist to take a look at it. Mine actually simplifies the universe and explains previously unexplained phenomena. But it’s not my “theory”. It’s not my “hypothesis”. It’s my opinion because, as a man without a PhD in physics, opinion is all I’m qualified to have. If that pisses you off, so be it. You’ll get nothing but reality from me.

63

Everything you mention is old hat by now. Keep reading. I’m all about 4D now.

64
Everything you mention is old hat by now.
And still you don't get it. Should try listening a little harder.

 

Then you say

I’m all about 4D now.
What does that mean. What? You just discovered time?

 

65

@ Joseph,

Its an interesting perspective, however if I understand you, you’re positing that time is a temporal dimension independent of the 3 other geometric dimensions. If I am wrong I welcome correction.

My personal and speculative perspective is that a separate independent temporal dimension does not, cannot exist independent of physical geometry.

IMO, time is an emergent by-product of physical chronological existence. Time is only measurable in direct relation to physical phenomena.

Time itself is not measurable for any properties other than as “duration” of change associated with the three geometric (physical) dimensions.

66

Yes, you are wrong, because I said this

the fabric of spacetime is a single five-dimensional manifold four dimensions of space and one dimension of time
67
Everything you mention is old hat by now. Keep reading. I’m all about 4D now.
It has been a hectic week and I have not had a lot of time, but I love this forum so I still find a few minutes here and there for it.

Physicists say 11 dimensions with a small group saying 7. I think you need at least 9 for membrane theory to work. And every grade school kid knows that there are 3 dimensions of space. They are the most basic dimensions possible. I can move forward and backward, left and right, up and down and…fickleton and recticen? Going to need to make up some words for the new directions I can apparently move through space. What is this 4th dimension of space that makes time the 5th dimension?

You can have whatever crazy ideas you want, but you’re not onto anything here. You’re just pretending you know more than physicists do and making shit up. And that’s cool, so long as you’re intelligent enough to realize that you’re just making shit up, almost certainly not onto something and you don’t go off on people who disagree with you,

68

We are 3D spacetime objects living inside a 4D spatial spacetime fabric.
Yes, Time is a dimension …that’s not what this thread is about. Watch the video. If spacetime is 4D + Time …we only see the parts that are 3D.

It allows frames of reference to scale …we know it is doing this because the speed of light is the same in time dilation zones. It makes cosmic voids expand. It makes black holes contract. It gives an answer to the big bang.

69

From another site:

Four LARGE spatial dimensions means anything that spreads out 'spherically' will follow an inverse cube law, not an inverse square law.
This is interesting because I think it explains how a black hole is started. A giant star collapses in on itself into the 4th dimension using the inverse cube law.
70
We are 3D spacetime objects living inside a 4D spatial spacetime fabric. Yes, Time is a dimension ..that’s not what this thread is about. Watch the video. If spacetime is 4D + Time ..we only see the parts that are 3D.
Okay, no you're making no sense whatsoever. You JUST quoted yourself saying this:
the fabric of spacetime is a single five-dimensional manifold four dimensions of space and one dimension of time
There you said spacetime is five dimensional. But in the part I bolded above, you say spacetime is 4 dimensional. And then you add time again for some reason. So it appears that you are saying that spacetime is 4 dimensional, plus time again, and we end up with spacetimetime being 5 dimensional?

So which is it? Is spacetime 4D or 5D? If it’s 5D, where are you getting the extra dimension? And why are you adding time twice?

71

Are you special needs?

72

I’m not going to argue with you when you obviously just want to be a dick about it. You might want to read the rules, by the way, before Lausten quotes them to you for that post.

You said in one post that there are 5 dimensions because “spacetime” is a single five-dimensional manifold. You said in a following post that “spacetime” is 4D, and then you added time to it again, which would make spacetimetime. So is “spacetime” 4 dimension or 5? Because you said both. There’s no way in hell I’m going to understand what you’re saying if you don’t even know what you’re saying.

73

::sigh::

Four SPATIAL dimensions + One time dimension.

Why would I be talking about any other combination?

74

Because I literally have no idea what you’re talking about. What is the fourth spatial dimension. You have height, width, depth and ???

75

Watch 4 minutes of the video I posted

76

I watched a little over 4 minutes of both the videos you posted. There is nothing there which would give you a 5th dimension. Those videos were talking about 4 dimensional objects. It is common knowledge that the 4th dimension is time. The most famous example of a fourth dimensional object would be a Klein Bottle, a bottle with no inside and no outside. You can look up pictures of what it looks like and even buy novelty representations of it, but a true Klein Bottle would not intersect itself.

This is a difficult concept, especially when you see the 3D representations of it where it does intersect itself, so an easier example often accompanies explanations of the Klein Bottle, that of the Mobius Strip. A Mobius Strip uses a simple strip of paper to represent a 2 dimensional object, twisted in the third dimension to make a piece of paper with only one side. You can put your pen down on it and pull it around under the pen and the start and end points will meet up with a single, unbroken line being on both sides of the paper. 4 dimensional objects are objects with measurements in all 4 dimensions of spacetime.

So, again, where does this 5th dimension come from? And DO NOT do your “Who’s on first” answer again and tell me that time is the 5th dimension. Time is the 4th dimension. This is common knowledge. All talk of the 4th dimension ever is talk about time. I know how you came up with this 5th dimension, but I would really like it if you knew how you came up with it. You added time to spacetime, which already includes time. You literally posted “spacetime is 4D + time”. Yes, spaceTIME is 4D because it’s space + TIME. So spacetime + time is space + time + time. Getting you to see where you went wrong is like pulling on a rope to get a rocket back to the ground.

77

Oh there is a rule that the fourth dimension has to be time? what? You sound like a nut.

78
Joseph said,

Oh there is a rule that the fourth dimension has to be time? what? You sound like a nut.


LOL, there is no rule that says the fourth dimension has to be time, there is a rule that says spacetime is three dimensional plus time ( 3 +1 = 4 ) That would make time the logical 4th emergent dimension along with any change in the three spatial dimensions.

Without change (of any kind) there is no measurable time of duration associated with a measurable event.

There may be more subtle aspects to the spatial dimensions but the fundamental question is, can the basic geometric answer all mathematical questions about measurable change?

79

Is Dark Matter, 4D mass?

80
Oh there is a rule that the fourth dimension has to be time? what? You sound like a nut.
Spacetime - the concepts of time and three-dimensional space regarded as fused in a four-dimensional continuum.

It is common knowledge that this is what is believed. Why are you so confrontational about this? I’m telling you what “physics” says, you seem to be just doing a “what if” sort of thing. Did you really believe you could knock out the mysteries of the universe in an afternoon with no formal physics education? If you did, that’s pretty delusional. If you didn’t, why take it so personally?