My explanation for dark matter. It's that simple.

[Zeiss Ikon]

8 hours ago, Nuke said:

the ftl nature of the superluminal "material" pretty much means it can never form atomic structures or be anything more than a soup of really fast particles. it will however be attracted to and orbit mass in our part of the universe.

Quick physics quiz: what's the orbital period of an FTL massive particle?

Answer: it doesn't have one; it's above observable-universe escape velocity.  If it exists, it's going to fly through once, and then it's gone, unless the universe has a fold-back at the "edge" that causes something going beyond to return via the opposite edge -- a hypothesis that, AFAIK, has been very thoroughly discredited.  While the whole universe might well be infinite, all evidence at present seems to suggest that is is "open", i.e. doesn't wrap back.

[Green Baron]

It would be nice to have the source for the "superlimunal" thing that pop up every now and then.

Ligthspeed is the limit. A particle at ligthspeed "experiences" the whole universe - infinite or not - in no time. Very short. All of it. Billions of billions of billions of years. And more. It's not negotiable, like you can't negotiate with the apple falling from the tree.

 

[Lelitu]

5 hours ago, Green Baron said:

It would be nice to have the source for the "superlimunal" thing that pop up every now and then.

Ligthspeed is the limit. A particle at ligthspeed "experiences" the whole universe - infinite or not - in no time. Very short. All of it. Billions of billions of billions of years. And more. It's not negotiable, like you can't negotiate with the apple falling from the tree.

 

The relativistic equations are symmetric about C. This suggests weird possibilities for massive particles ect that move strictly faster than C, with faster massive particles carrying less kinetic energy.

There are two physical possiblities for this, based on the observation that causality works (ie. effect always follows cause), and that a massive particle travelling faster than light is also capable of travelling backwards in time. Either particles faster than C don't exist, or massive particles faster than C cannot interact at all with anything at C or lower.

Massless particles of course travel at exactly C.

[Green Baron]

2 hours ago, Lelitu said:

The relativistic equations are symmetric about C. This suggests weird possibilities for massive particles ect that move strictly faster than C, with faster massive particles carrying less kinetic energy.

There are two physical possiblities for this, based on the observation that causality works (ie. effect always follows cause), and that a massive particle travelling faster than light is also capable of travelling backwards in time. Either particles faster than C don't exist, or massive particles faster than C cannot interact at all with anything at C or lower.

Massless particles of course travel at exactly C.

Nothing can go faster than light in spacetime, neither in special nor general relativity. Only the expansion of space can move things away from each other faster than light.

Example

It is not just an agreement or causality violation, it is an invariant.

Any ftl are highly speculative theoretical thoughts and up to now all are just faulty when looked at them closely but none is actually based on observation.

[Arugela]

Why do people insist nothing can move faster than light?! All that would do is make it hard(er) to see things....(possibley) In fact it would only increase the odds the idea is wrong because it's harder to measure. That is no different than when people believed you could not go faster than sound. It's baseless.

And not being able to see things does not mean it cannot exist because you can't measure it... I've actually heard that line before.

"If it can't be measured it's not science so if you can't see it at faster than light it can't exist." I'm not kidding!

Dark matter is either something stupid from a current theory and very easily non existant for an endless number or reasons. Or generally correct but likely to be a whole heap of other things that people do not consider because of something like thinking light speed can not be broken. It's all just ideas too dependent on modern theory instead of viewing the theory as a theory and viewing more possibilities beyond and viewing things in a more proper way.

You don't judge a theory on if it's been measured. That is not science. That is just confirmation and relatively useful to how much you are thinking out at once. You use proper reasoning. You view it on it's current merits by analysing the logic making it up. Those two things don't work the same way. One is infinitely more productive than the other. Thinking only the most simplistic things from what you have, "measured," it not good science. It's rather simple minded and actually takes away from scientific discovery. You should be much broader minded and apply any measurements to a much wider field of ideas. Then you also have more things to measure. You don't have to get an answer from a measurement. But you don't waste it as much if it's in a bigger pool of thought and applied to more things.

For instance. Restricting theory to light speed because someone proposed it and other said we believe in that is moronic(This is the case whether anyone admits it or not.). They should be testing all sides at once and much more vigorously.(or at least exploring the ideas more. god forbid they do this and find more possible solutions to even current theories by cross analysing the potential of the current thought sufficiently.) There are no where near the range of ideas out there that should be being explored. And god knows how much it has to do with awful academic environments revolving around money instead of proper thought.

In fact taking the general logic stated as the problems between specific and quantum mechanics you run into a similar problem. The purely logical answer is potentially that they are not meshing up because, assuming nothing wrong with the specific theory, is a whole lot of little things in quantum mechanics being measured as one thing or vice versa. And instead of thinking it out more to reduce the logical problems from the current thought they wait to, "measure," it and then try to find a new theory. This is slow walking ideas. It is completely irresponsible and lazy. If you think it out more within the idea structure proposed, forbid farther, you get more out of the measurement because you have more thought out to confirm potentially(AKA compare to the measurement at hand. Let alone come up with more things to measure possibly even more efficiently as happens magically when you spend more time thinking more out ahead of time. It's a wonderful part of human habit.). The theory side is not that hard if you're not lazy. But the ability or desire to think it out all the way is shrinking at an exponential rate.

Edited June 18, 2017 by Arugela

[Nuke]

18 hours ago, Green Baron said:

Superluminal doesn't exist. If you refer to the universe outside our hubble sphere, it is gone and won't come back. Impossible to interact with or reach. Say good bye :-)

There is nothing superlimunal or extrauniversal about dark matter. It is right here, it explains extra gravity, it grows over time but it doesn't interact otherwise. That makes it difficult to observe. For now.

 

i think part of it was the superluminal and the subluminal actually share the same space but particles in one cant interact with the particles in the other except through gravity. its not my theory though, honestly i only posted because i was wondering if someone else knew what this was, my google fu produces nothing.

 

nvm, i found it. thought it was something i read but it was a youtube video. derp.

crock are not?

[Steel]

1 hour ago, Nuke said:

nvm, i found it. thought it was something i read but it was a youtube video. derp.

[VIDEO]

crock are not?

Well he's an engineer with no formal physics training and his theory is entirely conceptual with no mathematical basis, so I'm going to say it's unlikely that it would stand up to any rigorous examination.

[Green Baron]

You can, of course, send a beam of light the long way over mirrors and things while you hike the short way.

Then you're faster than light :-)

 

[Arugela]

That could be a fun way to measure light speed. Has anyone done test where the bounce lasers back and forth and measure compared to a laser in a  straight line to see if light speed has any inconsistencies or other characteristics?

You could split one beam and make half the laser go straight and the other one hit the end target after taking detours. Maybe even multiple beams at different lengths/trajectories.

Edited June 18, 2017 by Arugela

[Steel]

1 hour ago, Arugela said:

That could be a fun way to measure light speed. Has anyone done test where the bounce lasers back and forth and measure compared to a laser in a  straight line to see if light speed has any inconsistencies or other characteristics?

You could split one beam and make half the laser go straight and the other one hit the end target after taking detours. Maybe even multiple beams at different lengths/trajectories.

This sort of thing is one of the most widely performed experiments in optics. A similar idea is the basis of the interferometer [1], which is an instrument which is widely used to make incredibly precise measurements of various things (this is what was used in the recent LIGO detections of gravitational waves [2]). In fact the Michelson-Morley experiment [3] (which, again, is along similar lines, looking at the difference between the speed of light beams that travel along different paths) was one of the first experiments to support the fact that the speed of light is the same in all directions and reference frames. As far as I'm aware, no-one has published any inconsistencies in the the speed of light in the 150 or so years people have been messing around with light beams and mirrors.

Edited June 18, 2017 by Steel

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, Steel said:

This sort of thing is one of the most widely performed experiments in optics. A similar idea is the basis of the interferometer [1], which is an instrument which is widely used to make incredibly precise measurements of various things (this is what was used in the recent LIGO detections of gravitational waves [2]). In fact the Michelson-Morley experiment [3] (which, again, is along similar lines, looking at the difference between the speed of light beams that travel along different paths) was one of the first experiments to support the fact that the speed of light is the same in all directions and reference frames. As far as I'm aware, no-one has published any inconsistencies in the the speed of light in the 150 or so years people have been messing around with light beams and mirrors.

Add that light interference is used a lot then you need very high degree of accuracy.  
Often used in modern inertial navigation systems, tiny accelerations will change how far the beams has to travel and this is accurate down to an fraction of the wavelength. 
Far smaller and no movable parts 

[Zeiss Ikon]

A split beam, one half sent direct and the other half rerouted (via reflection from an object) is also the basis for holography.  The reflected beam arrives with a delay that causes interference fringes which can be captured with a photographic plate or film.  When developed, the emulsion can be illuminated (with a laser, for the simplest form) and recreate an image of the object, in 3 dimensions, plus a bunch of other bizarre features (take a tiny piece of the hologram film, and you can still view the entire image, for instance).

This, of course, has nothing to do with either dark matter or FTL "matter" (once called "tachyons", "fast particles" by contrast to everything we know, "tardyons" or "slow particles").  There's never been any experimental evidence for tachyons, nor does there appear to be any way to falsify the hypothesis of their existence, hence the idea was dropped.