Black holes and Dark matter

[VanillaGorilla]

I have a theory about the origin of Dark matter. Now we all know that beyond the event horizon of a black hole, matter seem to disapear. Right? and we know that without the gravity of Dark matter, galaxies would fly apart an never evolve into the complicated structures we see in the older galaxies. So, I THINK all supermassive blackholes that are a certain mass, convert the consumed matter into Dark matter and ejects it out of invisible jets, then surrounds the galaxy and holds it together.
I'm not an educated person, I am new to TOEQUEST. But, I think that understanding Dark matter, will lead to the theory of everything..

[Mikal]

Hi VanillaGorilla....welcome to the Toe forum....I wish that I could comment on your idea of dark matter but I am just now learning about science terms and whatnot...


Mikal

[neutralino]

Nothing can escape from a black hole, not even dark matter. There were some ideas that so dark matter was made up of so called primordial black holes (small black holes made very early in the universe's history), but I think these theories are not being considered anymore.

[PoPpAScience]

I have a theory about the origin of Dark matter. Now we all know that beyond the event horizon of a black hole, matter seem to disapear. Right? and we know that without the gravity of Dark matter, galaxies would fly apart an never evolve into the complicated structures we see in the older galaxies. So, I THINK all supermassive blackholes that are a certain mass, convert the consumed matter into Dark matter and ejects it out of invisible jets, then surrounds the galaxy and holds it together.
I'm not an educated person, I am new to TOEQUEST. But, I think that understanding Dark matter, will lead to the theory of everything..

Hi Vanilla,

Galaxies could be held together by centripetal forces, and the Dark matter you speak of, could be unformed core substance(Aether).

[neutralino]

Hi Vanilla,

Galaxies could be held together by centripetal forces, and the Dark matter you speak of, could be unformed core substance(Aether).

But then this Aether should be everywhere: why don't we measure it in our local area? Galaxies are not held together with centripetal forces, at least not if you use the accepted theory of gravity. Even if the dark matter used to explain galaxy rotation curves can be done away with, I don't see large scale structure formation in the early universe can be explained without dark matter.

[Graybeard]

Hi neutralino ..... Howzitgoin. ....

You forgot to mention that 'centripetal forces' are not forces either, they are just describing the effects of primary forces ..... lol

cool bananas ... greg

[PoPpAScience]

Hi Neutralino;

I guess I did not need to add the word Aether. After all what is the difference between calling the substance that can not be measured, Dark Matter or Aether. Silly me.

But I see Neutralino that you accept the substance(Dark Matter), that can not be measured ether, as fact. I guess I was just using the word that was acceptable for a very long time before it was given the fancy name Dark Matter.

I actually prefer to call it unformed core substance. I call it unformed because it is not as yet grouped into an object that has the momentum for measurement. We are having a hard time measuring the Neutrino's here on Earth, yet we accept it as fact. So, to say that Aether can not be so, because it can not be measured, but Dark matter can be so, because it can not be measured ether, is sort of silly also I guess.

Bottom line is that I believe that the Galaxies are surrounded by a substance that can not be measured, that has effects upon the Galaxies form.

But then this Aether should be everywhere: why don't we measure it in our local area? Galaxies are not held together with centripetal forces, at least not if you use the accepted theory of gravity. Even if the dark matter used to explain galaxy rotation curves can be done away with, I don't see large scale structure formation in the early universe can be explained without dark matter.

[PoPpAScience]

Hi neutralino ..... Howzitgoin. ....

You forgot to mention that 'centripetal forces' are not forces either, they are just describing the effects of primary forces ..... lol

cool bananas ... greg

Hi Greg;

I guess 'lol' means, in your educated opinion. All forces, are the product of interactions with other things. But I guess I got to come up with a mathematical unseeable particle and give it a name like glueer, just like in QM, in order for centripetal to be considered a force.

Right now I see the centripetal force as a centre seeking force with out a particle to enact it. It is the bonding effect of substance, and the other forces that help with holding the Galaxy together while it is being slowly moved into the centre.

[Graybeard]

No .... what I meant was that centripetal is just a description of the motion of an object in a circle .... if it was a straight line it would be linear and not centripetal.

This is not a description of a force. It is just a requirement for that particular kind of motion.

no offence ... greg

[PoPpAScience]

No .... what I meant was that centripetal is just a description of the motion of an object in a circle .... if it was a straight line it would be linear and not centripetal.

This is not a description of a force. It is just a requirement for that particular kind of motion.

no offence ... greg

Greg;
Motion of an object in a circle is called angular momentum. Now when I use the word 'force', I actual mean "Action". I do not believe in the mystical particles attributed to force in QM or gravity. I see the forces as "Action", based on interactions between different densities of spinning core substance.

Thus, to me centripetal force(action) is caused by the interaction of different levels of core substance density, no glueer's needed.