My conversation about dark matter

"Dark matter — non-luminous material in space — is understood to constitute 85 percent of the matter in the universe. Unlike normal matter, it does not absorb, reflect, or emit light, making it difficult to detect.
Physicists are certain dark matter exists, having inferred this existence from the gravitational effect dark matter has on visible matter. What they are less certain of is how dark matter interacts with ordinary matter — or even if it does." 

How do they give such a name for something they don't know exits. Everything said doesn't qualify it to be classified as matter.

The name matter, as we know of, is made of well known atoms which are then made of sub atomic particles: protons, neutrons, and electrons. I don’t want to go deeper than that for now. Scientists believe a different kind of matter can exist. If this is true, then an entirely new field of study needs to be established. Until then, naming them in their early stages needs precaution.

The other belief is the instruments that are being newly developed measuring visually undetectable signals ahead of researches. I still think it’s too early to speculate the outcome.

Anything can interact weakly, or not, with a particle. If one cannot determine what dark matter is made of, how can it qualify as matter? The name, for what scientists believe exists is very controversial. They know it exists. Vacuum exists too for that matter, but it’s not matter. Vacuum can also weakly influence matter.

I’m not in a position to scientifically prove my hypothesis, but I believe it should be considered in the scientific researches.

I think the space the universe expands into can't be anything other than vacuum. This should mean there's plenty of empty space. Which in turn means the vast empty space may account for the majority of the volume of the universe due to bits and pieces of empty spaces between, for example galaxies, and planets. This simply means it has it's own force of suction that devoured most of the matter since the big bang. If this is what the instruments detect as interacting with matter deep inside the earth, then is it appropriate to call it dark matter? 

To recap on my conversation, I want to stress the significance of my attempt to explain what dark matter isn’t. It’s not matter. My firm belief is, it has something to do with the curvature of space. Deep into the cosmos, the complexities of space curvatures involving galaxies,  stars, planets and black holes, may have created a delusion of gravity and space curvatures as a barrier to the path of light as if it is caused by dark matter. This opens up a new question: What is the difference between gravity and dark energy?

One more point I would like to make is, the new phenomena that emerge as the universe gets older. One of them is the galaxy formation that wasn’t evident long after the Big Bang . This maybe because, as the universe expands into the empty space(vacuum), and the entropy gradually loses strength, more space is being created between stars thus causing the curling up of their trajectories. This is in an attempt to find a corrective response to the availability of more space, and as a result, the expanding of the universe, including other encounters whenever there’s a new feature appearing as the universe ages. The debacle around the existence of dark matter and dark energy is one of those newly created issues whose true understandings need to be resolved.

HIGHER DIMENSIONS

         HIGHER DIMENSIONS

Lately, I have become obsessed with extra dimensions.
I felt like putting their understandings in perspective, in the following way.

Instead of dealing with the intricacies of combining earthly shapes to form higher dimensional, rather imaginary objects, my method involves spinning and rotating subsequent shapes starting from a point to the higher dimensions. This method helps us utilize symmetry, and convergence of all shapes into circles in one dimension, disks in two dimensions, and three-dimensional spheres that emulate the behaviors of our universe and possibly its emergence into being.

At the beginning, there was a point. Infinite number of points lined up to make a straight line or a bending line, where in case the two ends meet, they make a closed curve. The circle is a perfect example of a symmetrically closed curve. It is formed by connecting a complete circle of points equidistant from a center point. Swiping all points of a line (radius) around a center point makes a disk - a circular plane. This is a two-dimensional shape in space. If we rotate a circular plane on itself (spin) one complete round, it will make a sphere. A sphere is a three-dimensional object. We are limited to a three-dimensional space. So far, we can describe a three-dimensional space in a two-dimensional plane, for example on paper, a monitor, or a blackboard. A fourth dimension in my opinion is a sphere rolling and creating a curvature in space. That is like a three-dimensional scale leaving an imprint on an imaginary canvas.

All other geometric shapes can be inscribed, or circumscribed around a circle, a two-dimensional disk, or a three-dimensional sphere. 

All of them converge to their corresponding symmetrical shapes as the number of sides infinitely increases (polygons and polytopes alike) to infinite points. The exceptions are triangles and quadrilaterals, pyramids, and polyhedrons, as they present subsets of polygons. Like polygons, all can be decomposed into triangles and quadrilaterals of the same area and vice versa, which means all of the regular earthly shapes are the decomposed versions of the higher dimension. https://youtu.be/ysV6iF3Rmjo

We can present a three-dimensional object on a two-dimensional plane using xyz axes perpendicular to each other. An imaginary fourth dimension can also be drawn but it looks like two separate systems touching each other. To present a fourth dimension on a true three-dimensional space instead of a plane would show the hidden sides we cannot see. But the possibility of doing it is very dim. As dimensions increase, we lose the sense of imagination about what they should look like, let alone try to present them on a two-dimensional plane. Or we need to learn how to draw higher dimensional figures over a three-dimensional sphere.  Otherwise, I guess we need to leave it to those who can see us but we don't.

Every space needs its own clock to measure time.

Why does time seem to slow down when traveling at the speed of light?

This has been a controversial issue because no one experimented by traveling at the speed of light. It simply is not possible. So where do we come up with the idea that time dilates as we speed, and considerably, as we speed closer to the speed of light. It was detected when a clock that was observed on an Earth orbiting plane slowed by a billionth of a second compared to that on Earth. So, it is safe to say the clock slowed because it wasn't made for that radius of revolution. By that I mean a clock different from the clock that is invented to meet the earth's full spin on itself (24 hrs.) which adds up to weeks, months, and a full year when the earth completes one revolution around the Sun would read differently.



We can deduce from the above clock of our time measurement that all time measurements can be made according to the duration of a full cycle of something moving around another center of mass (Sun). We can also say with confidence that our universe is all about making cyclical motions around a certain frame of reference. We can fairly say there are planetary, solar, galactic, and universal reference frames where the clocks that measure their respective times work optimally. If that is the case, then our clock may not work the same way if we took it somewhere far into space, let's say Jupiter. It will try to count a year's time of revolution as on earth, which actually comes short of measuring Jupiter's year; its full revolution around the Sun. I believe it will move slowly to make up for the shortage. Does that mean on Jupiter we need a different type of clock made to measure the time it takes to complete a revolution around the Sun? I say yes because that way its days and years can be aligned accordingly.

So if we took earth's clock to Jupiter, what would change? Obviously, the radius from the Sun changed compared to that of Earth. That leads to the next question. If  the radius (distance) from the sun changes at or close to the speed of light, what will happen to the Earth's clock we hypothetically travel with? Change in space means change in the radius(distance) from a certain reference point, around which every moment the clock has to adjust its complete cycle to make Earth's year. It can only accomplish this by moving extremely slow, to the extent that it seems it has stopped counting time.

If humans went with this clock, can we say they will be younger than if they stayed on Earth all that time? I can understand the clock's speed slowing, but not what it does to humans until it is practically proven? 

One more point about the need for the term space time in physics is the alternative conclusion that can be made from the above analogy. It looks like time is a choice where it's required when the occupants of space (us) need to take track of time. Otherwise, I think things just happen no matter what time it is. If I can't schedule a meeting at a certain location without agreeing on the time to meet, it may not work here on earth, but I don't think the stars collide with a predetermined time and space of their own. In fact they don't even care. Things just happen in the outer space by objects in space simply obeying natural law, according to physics. Time applies for the occupants of objects the that have managed to interact gravitationally, thus forming the curvature of space. For any object that is wondering in an empty space without any gravitational influence, it’s no other choice but use the speed of light as a reference point to make sense of time. This situation is obviously an example of why time doesn’t exist in an absence of gravitational attraction between objects, as light isn’t affected by it.


My take on this subject:

The present and the future in our universe are repetitions of the past until a symmetry breaks. Symmetry is infinite and eternal. Where ever symmetry breaks locally, a short lived phenomenon occurs. Spiral galaxies, black holes, space time curve, gravitation, and lifeforms are some of the short lived phenomenon that exist until the eternal symmetry created after the BIG BANG wins its uniformity back. That is why there is a constant extinction of stars and formations of super novae, all happening to obey the command of a symmetric momentum in order to overcome(heal) the irregularity.

In conclusion, singularity is the only moment when the term "NOW" can be used in a perfect fit. Time after that belongs to the beholder, where my moment of now doesn't match your moment of now unless we're the same entity, revolving around the same frame of reference.

           Why it is important to analyze before critic

In this multifaceted and diverse world of ours, there are usually many ways of looking at any issue we are facing in our daily life. In some cases the issues may be too local to be complex enough to draw ones attention. More often than not, the issues are not as easy as adding one to one to get two. Issues involving the destiny of a significantly large area or population can be a daunting task to decipher, because as large as the size is, the complex nature of the situation compels one to look at the big picture in order to come to conclusions that demand oversight.

There are so many issues we need to resolve to improve the conditions of life in general. Global issues are actually the compilation of the local or regional realities that need equally important attention. Be it the climatic, poverty, leadership, or systemic issues, one has to approach them locally as well as globally to tackle them. All of them lead to political tensions if not dealt with appropriately by the concerned. That is the reason why everywhere we go we find those who lead and those who have to watch the appropriateness of the leaders.

As one goes to different places, one can easily observe the striking differences be it in  culture, literacy, scientific progress, landscape, natural resources, etc. But all of those differences are the constituents of the beauty of this world by making it ever diverse. Our planet is one, and can only be seen by a stranger (alien) as one. So, however diverse we are, the global outlook unites us whether we like it or not.

All those diversities mentioned above persuade us not to look at things at a face value. Things are deeper than some of us like to make them look. Those of us who like to simplify things and give a simpler answer, or pose simple questions to an otherwise complex situation, not only display ignorance, but also lack responsibility. As such, comments or critics that lack deep analysis about major issues that beg for answer always lead the observe to ask: Would they be capable enough to accomplish a better job if given chance, or are they just playing a destructive role because they may think they may not be affected by whatever consequence follows their immaturity. Or may be they are worried the analytic approach to mutual problems may either benefit their opponent or classify them as a proponent.

Does Ukraine ring the bell?

Editor's note: The article is my opinion. I wrote it around the time when the Ukrainian crisis began.

It is not my intention to stir the already troubled waters in select areas of the world, but things that unfold as time unveils itself not only draw my attention to ask what is to be expected in the near or long term in our planet that is filled with turmoil, but what to expect tomorrow.

The trending developments are extremely troubling to the extent that even the wisest and most foresighted individuals may have a hard time grasping the role the future plays on its own leaving every one else powerless to foresee the outcome.

The reason for my concern is not based on unfounded and or misguided assumptions about the welfare of our world. It is the result of being stricken not only once, twice or three times, but more often than not, by surprises that show the down grading of  the human spirit, and in some instances, cruelty of disproportionate dimensions.

Examples can be numerous. Every day we hear horror stories be it the cause of natural disaster, individuals taking the law in their hands, wars of no nonsense that turned to killing sprees by those who submit to shortfalls of anger management, and so on.

As big as this world of ours is, it is imperative to expect its intricacies can, as a result, grow exponentially. There is a tendency for the regional entities that encompass groups of countries that otherwise should have common strategies and interests for mutual development may well be the stooges of bigger influences that can instigate bigger frictions among powers whose grips on their life stream interests cannot be loosened without devastating consequences.

These are the main reasons why the world body has to create an effective system of a world government that lays ways to tackle emerging problems, some of which can get out of control, specially when least expected. If there is no predefined method of prevention against such misfortune, the only way out is getting the answer the days or years after a fierce war among the powers of interest. Historically, the two world wars so far had been the result of seeking the answer to resolve the undefined state the world once was. If this kind of price has to be paid to resolve complex world problems as a natural rule that can't be avoided, then there is nothing that can stop another one from coming, hopefully, after which a very important scientific theory may be in the coming.

Global Warning?

The 21st century leading agenda should be dealing with the potential threat from visibly developing climate change.It could easily be categorized as the impending major warning for the humanity and all living things around the world. The controversial side of this issue is echoed by those who like to assume this threat as a simple environmental climatic cycle with a historic record of its own. This simply means the climatic instability in the history of our planet may have destroyed civilizations; it may have killed irreplaceable human, animal and plant species but we shouldn't worry about it at all. Well, I have a good idea for this reckless belief. Let's for a moment assume that global warming is not a man made problem. Then let's chose not to care about the so called cyclic climatic phenomenon just because it wasn't created by humans. Is it not still something to think about in terms of preparing for the natural cycle as the damage caused by it is similar if not the same as that of global warming created by too much industrial and auto carbon emissions into the atmosphere? One way to prepare for either of these devastating causes is improving energy consumption by tapping into the natural alternative energy resources. It is a win win situation if solar, wind and other energy sources are introduced to users however long its full implementation takes. The reason behind it is improving human's fight for survival as a tool to protect it from disasters of all dimensions. So, carbon emission or not; climatic patterns or not; Arctic Iceberg melting or not; sea level rising or not, going green with watchful eyes for new environmental warnings is the way to go.

The other wall

Just about the same time the Berlin wall was torn down, many new walls were created making the over-all global picture less proud to celebrate. It was the fall of the then super power, the Soviet Union whose staggering communist foundation stumbled without little or no preparation for the sudden change. There goes the ever increasing list of the not-so happy allies looking for new directions to follow. Some made their way to a more sustainable system of government by creating adoptive mechanisms to cope with the new world order. Many other countries though, found themselves facing a more challenging giant made over night from pre-existing little internal problems that were considered manageable at first sight. After the end of the cold war, the little internal problems got more than what they bargained for. It has become the major factor for the separation of the otherwise fairly well intentioned regional integrations whose fate was regrettably self destructive.

The seemingly positive turn of events that characterized the opening up of a new era where countries that were under the self made prison of the Soviet communist ideology, known as the Iron Curtain, happened to be the beginning of a long journey whose final destination has been ambiguous for quite a while. The last twenty years have been preoccupied with a show of muscle to those who wanted to test the existence of super powers as we knew them. It has been a hell of new developments from corners that were least expected. The end of the cold war had to fill the vacuum that the Soviet communist power house had left behind. It is not yet replaced but while the emergence of regional and ethnic conflicts has been playing the major role, the expansion of religious fundamentalism is pulling the current civilization back to the 16th century. It is like reminding us that the history we passed centuries ago may need a thorough revision to get the future prospect of the impending civilization straight. It is becoming ever evident many of us will not be ready for this increasingly strange looking world of ours.

What needs to be done? This is a question that has never been as hard to answer as it ever had been in the past. Why the rest of the world is in turmoil and under unwarranted separations is being related to the demise of the Soviet Union which was one of the pillars of world super power supports that was keeping the balance of world stability. The cold war had to be resolved by a winner, but the long awaited outcome came at the expense of the smaller countries scrambling in search of their belonging. It is not yet clear if we are finally approaching a settling planet of ours. Until then, the dilemma about where we are directed is a question that poses itself every day.