I would say the Brightness method is more accurate, the orbital method is just absurd (wouldve made sense if a galaxy was a single big light emitting body, but it consists of more empty spaces tha actual stars). Its just like observing a 1kg of cotton ball and 1 kg of steel from a distance and assuming the cotton ball has 300 times more mass than the steel ball. I dont think the brightness of a star is directly proportinal to its mass and is proportional in all cases.
these are all calculated using assumptions :( no wonder shit never adds up it would be like trying to balance the books with only guesses as to how much money was spent
What if the supper massive black hole at the center would spin the other way around as the galaxy. Since its so massive it can effect space itself, Slowing down the turning speed of the stars that are near it. The closer its near the black hole the more it would be slow down. Isn't this possible? But I guess it would be weird for the black hole too spin the other way around. They said they saw it at 1000 galaxy's, but have they found any that where different?
@NLwino It's the first time I hear such a theory, which seems to be very interesting. I have seen many documentaries about black holes, but no one of them refered to this. I mean the spinning. Seems logical, while newtron stars spin, why not the black holes? They are mass and matter anyway.
What about planets and astroids, those dont emit light either or could reflect light in a different direction than the observer ... why couldn't that explain the difference?
@TheOneRebornElyrize No, I didn't know that. However, I'd rather go with xxxaudiophilexxx's more acurate explanation, who provides the argumentation for my doubts about the orbital method.
@TheOneRebornElyrize Such a shame that you think of me that way. I'd love you to explain the details of this. I'm very interested in physics. I was just replying in such a crude manner because you were not helping me at all.
To me it sounded like: " ... you're wrong, you do know that? Because if you don't, than ur even a bigger fool".
@sindarapos well as i said, im not nearly as interested as you so im not rly memorizing stuff >.> i just like looking at theories and stuff so..yea.. sorry for not being much help ^^'
SR suggested space was nothing but EM quanta (e.g. photons carrying light waves), then GR conceded that EM quanta did not define space and suggested matter requires no quantum interaction to maintain a curved space, just quanta for oscillating, and I've no idea what is proposed for monotonic motion, because a Fourier transform window is needed and an ideal window is perpetually frustratable. Anyway, saying the space and the light are both bent seems redundant, although space is not light.
Anyone else think that this SandustanBrasov, who is spamming this thread, might be a potential terrorist? I'm normally not one to jump to such a conclusion. He's probably only a kook. But the guy is creepy. He seems to understand a little scientific terminology. But overall, he speaks gibberish. He's the absolute archetype of what I imagine when I think about the guys who perpetrated 911.
And yet, we can see, we can visualize the ethereal matter. The scheme to one device for to visualize the ethereal matter: EXIST! And this device it can realize!
The matter of the our terrestrial globe has four states of aggregation: solid, liquid, gseous and ethereal and not three after official science. The matter on which we see it, proceed from the ethereal matter, which from cancentration in concentration it had constituted in the electrons, in protons respectivel;y in the atoms of the chemical elements which had overtaken at the gaseous, liquid and solid state. All the matter on which we see it, is condensed ether.
The PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL MATTER is the visible matter with free eye and is constituted from atoms of the chemical elements. The PHYSICAL-ETHEREAL MATTER is a matter with atoms more small with 7..8 order of dimension than the atoms of chemical elements, and the bodies formed from this matter are invisible for the human eye. The ETHEREAL PHYSICS it occupy with the study of the ethereal matters, but which was abandoned in the XX century, because in 1905 A.Einstein excludes the ether
• SandustanBrasov But the ETHER is a physical reality constituted from a very small matter, invisible for human eye, and is formed from atoms more small with 7...8 order of dimension than the atoms of the chemical elements. The matter of the ether penetrate in all the visible bodies and is the physical matter which fills both the interplanetary space and the interatomic space. The ether is a matter with mass and weigth, being subdued and she the action of the universal attraction law.
Through the relativity theory to Einstein of over century, it hold with strenght -as a conspiracy a general activity of intellectual stultify of the planetary population. from relativity theory proceed the notion of: singularity, Big bang, black holes and holes of worm. From 1905 and till now in 2011, the disciples of the Einstein, preach with contumely as scientific elements of high class these theoretical confusions, these absurdities from which they had made a business.
The science has and history. In the Fundamental Principle of Democrit(470..380BC) it show:"From nothing nothing's born, nothing that exist can not be destroyed and any transformation consist from a reunion and separation...Out of atoms and ether. all rest is not otherwise than rationament and not exist...The spirit as well as the ether consist of a small and spherical atoms, very mobile, atoms that their movement form the phenomenon of life".
It popularize the fantastical theories and stantardized theories with which it terrorize the inhabitants the Earth, after what Einstein with relativity theory had blocked the science of the century XX. Sptephen Hawking and roger Penrose had demonstrated in 1967 that the black holes proceed from the relativity theory. How it can conceive and it can say that the heart of the one black hole is a gravitational singularity whose volume tend to zero and whose mass tend to infinite?
The notion of dark matter and dark energy proceed from theoretical physics, from relativity theory of the A. Einstein, from the mistaken interpretation of the physical reality. Something exist indeed: and matter and energy; but is the much ethereal matter and the her energys from the her frame. Dark energy and cosmic acceleration are a failure of relativity of the Einstein.
• SandustanBrasov In 1905, A.Einstein conclude that the ether hasn't a correspondent in reality and constitute not a medium which let can serve as reference system. Thus Einstein renounced to the ether notion and absolute space and emits the two restricted relativity principles. By it content the second principle excludes the ether, impose as limit of bodies' movement - the light speed - and denatured completely the classic dynamics reality.
Scientist are known to make mistakes. Like noncoding DNA being called Junk and then actually finding out its not, or that white light was a fundamental color until Newton showed otherwise, Plum pudding model, the Atomic theory before the discovery of subatomic particles...and on and on... Dark Matter along with Higgs will be another footnote of science mistakes....
The architecture of the worlds go through several metamorphyc stages before they fully develop. The primary face is that of a sun which consists of gigantic magnetic spheres that are inundated by a sea of ions. The next face is that of the development of a skin upon which mushroom structures develop that evedntually sustain the crust of the planet. This entire process starts at an approximate rate of 3 billionths of one inch per second which the size of the atom.
Hey has anyone ever wondered about the validity of Fg = Gmm/r2 ? I know that newton derived the constant G through calculations within our own solar system. But how can we assume that G is still constant when we are calculating masses in different galaxies that are so far away? Maybe the value of G is only constant for our solar system and not the rest of the universe. This could be another explaination for the speed of the stars instead of dark matter. Its just my opinion
I hate the way this guy talks.... I don't know why, but there's just something about the way he pronounces everything.... it's getting on my nerves...
There is something that I don't understand about this series:
Why would dark matter make it so that all the stars spin around the center of the galaxy with the same speed? Wouldn't a greater mass throughout the whole galaxy and beyond just increase the speed of all stars according to the gravitational law? That way, the stars still have a difference in speed depending on their distance to the center..
Question.., what happens if some of those flashlights are in front of one or more flashlights? Or rather, what if one star is blocking the light from a few stars behind it from our perspective. Would that not account for some missing mass in the brightness method? This sounds so basic and logical to me. What am I missing here?
@kandrkandr you see it a 2d that is why there was less stars than the pther method if you wanted to get all light emiting matter you would need to convert tha in to 3d light using complicted method i don't know
The more I see videos about the universe, the more similitude I see with atoms. Couldn't there be a similitude in the behavior of atoms and the behavior of whole galaxies? perhaps the comparison could be drawn as electrons = planets, and nuclei = suns.
But then what would be the parallel of black holes in atoms? could they be a constant at different sizes? like the micro black holes in atoms and the actual gigantic black holes in outer space. what do u think??
The Doppler causes a shift in frequency, but how is the original frequency determined? Is it the assumption that the light produced by other stars produces the same amount of energy as our sun?
@TymeMastery The original frequency is determined by identifying sets of related spectral emission lines as belonging to specific electron orbital transitions. The most well known way of estimating distance to other galaxies, besides Hubble's constant and as a check on it, is to use a certain type of supernova event as a "standard candle" brightness reference. Not an expert, but that's my understanding of it.
True Free energy devices exist,But the Oil companies want these technologies unknown to the masses,Find a motor that needs no fuel or input at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Be a part of the energy revolution!
@nafativedec Actually, you can call them suns. It's been done by astrophyicists like Carl Sagan to illustrate to the public that the Sun is just like all the other stars, and is nothing special.
You wouldn't object to someone talking about "A thousand jupiters" when talking about exoplanet discovery would you? It's quite obvious that they are referring to objects much like the Sun. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the use of expressing things in that way to the public.
@nybotheveg It's definitely time for some creativity. How about putting a snake in a coworkers desk drawer and describing her scream as she runs down the hallway?
@nybotheveg Granted, the extant audience may be small. But if we could elevate the "snake in the office drawer" trick to the level of a fad many more people would understand doppler shift without resorting to outmoded notions like trains.
Of course, we'd still have the problem of shifting the concept to light wavelength. Maybe we could use limericks? How about this:
There was a young lady named Bright
Who could travel faster than light
Oops. That's only for relativity. I'll ponder some more..
@sbergman27 If I had a penny for every time I have heared that analogy....I'd have 4 pound and seventy six pence! It is an effective comparison though so....better the devil you know....you know?
I was watching sumthing about how Dark Matter Can cause the freeze or sumthing like that. The fate of the Universe can freeze and like stars disappear and the whole universe will b cold.
@narutocursemark No. Dark matter can't cause freezing. Dark matter's mass helps to hold the Universe together. With too little mass, it expands forever, gradually cooling down, and freezing into a situation which is, ironically, called "Heat Death". With greater mass we get a "Big Crunch" as space-time crashes back down. It appears that things are finely balanced. Which still means heat-death (freezing). But don't worry. Trillions of years and all that.
@sbergman27 No I didnt say it CAN CAUSE FREEZING. I said it can cause sumthing scientists called "The Freeze" But I didnt kno wat it was called bak then, and well, I still dont lols. But yea Dark Matter Expands the universe while its gravity holding it down. They think 70% of the universe is dark matter. And yes I already know how the Heat Death and Big Crunch is caused. No need for the comment really.
@narutocursemark The terminology is a bit confusing. The best info we have (which comes from the WMAP probe) shows that the universe is made up of 70% Dark Energy, 26% Dark Matter, and 4% regular matter/energy. Dark Energy can, indeed, cause a big freeze. It induces a repulsive force. A sort of negative gravity. The thing I said about "finely balanced" was wrong. It's true regarding spatial geometry. But we're looking at an ever-accelerating expansion of the Universe. A Big Freeze, if you will.
I was looking at the show through the worm hole, a cable science series narrated by Morgan Freeman. The name of that show was "The riddle of black holes". And they were saying that their could be up to one hundred million black holes in our galaxy alone. So if each black hole had the average mass of 338 to 400 solar masses that could account for that missing mass, and is was said that the black hole at the center of our galaxy has 4 million solar masses. This is an amazing univese.
General Relativity is Newton's gravitational force mediated at light-speed, so GR's gravity waves travel at lightspeed, also combined with the idea that light energy behaves as if the light has mass, with consequently gravitationally-curved light that is supposed to be light following a shortest (yet curved) path through space between its source and receiver.
Gravitons allow for a more complex model of GR-like gravity, with an intrinsic wavelength and with detailed absortion-emission rules.
Here's a rough analogy, suppose you have a red-hot iron sphere in open space. The sphere cools evenly on all sides. The current model of gravity is a bit like saying that if you put two of these cooling spheres side-by-side, they'll still cool evenly on all sides. My suggestion is analogous to recognizing that the sides of the spheres that face each other will stay hotter longer, as heat radiation bounces back and forth between the spheres.
Continuing - the graviton loop idea I'm tentatively suggesting here is that gravitons may not necessarily be emitted from a particle of matter in such a way that the gravitons go out in all directions equally. Instead, gravitons might tend to be emitted most in the direction from which the most incoming gravitons are coming.
Using Hoag's galaxy as a template for reformulating gravity, and looking at gravity as a graviton-mediated force instead of a spacetime fabric, I've decided gravity needs an intrinsic cosine factor correction, cos(kd), multiplying Newton's traditional G*m1*m2/d^2 formula, however that correction is not enough.
Supposing that the nature of gravitons biases the movement of gravitons from the core to the stars surrounding it and vice-versa in a loop may explain the rest of the dark matter effect.
I love the name Dark Matter, but I get the feeling is the scientists way of saying "Fuck if we know" Although the fact that we can even know this much from such subtle differences speaks volumes of how sophisticated our knowledge is of the cosmos and the fundamental laws that rule all things.
unfortunately the animated galaxies have mistakes, galaxies always turns against clockwise not clockwise, that should be fixed in future videos, otherwise its still a good documentation.
how can we apply this theory to sabermetrics in major league baseball?...all sports are pure physics!...how does this affect a brewer spitball thrown at a cubs batters ugly head? /@ milwaukee
Is their a connection between the missing matter in our universe and black holes,and is it possable that dark matter is the byproduct of the matter that falls into black holes?
@bicnarok I'm sure they have accounted for that using other methods. We know of several objects that don't emit light, such as black holes, planets, nebulae, etc.
Do you know sometimes when you type and see a red underline that means you spelled the word wrong? One or two words is fine, but 90% of the sentence really isn't. You will not get taken seriously if you keep that up.
so are they saying that scientists know the mass of the galaxy, but it isn't giving out the amount of light equivalent to the amount of stars/mass. are they saying that the dark matter is adding to the mass of the galaxy itself?
dont call me stupid or anything, but im only 15 and i enjoy things about space, physics, etc.
thats basicly it the galixys are moving to fast making the amount of visable mass less then there should be in order for the stars to orbit that fast dark matter is basicly the extra additive that makes up for the missing mass
Do you know sometimes when you type and see a red underline that means you spelled the word wrong? One or two words is fine, but 90% of the sentence really isn't. You will not get taken seriously if you keep that up
Hold on now, if the predictions for the rotation of a galaxy is based on the assumption that it will behave as it does in our solar system, then isnt it appropriate to assume that 99% of the mass of the galaxy will be behaving as an 'object' at the center? Bam, found your dark matter, dibs on the Nobel :D
So if the galaxies have velocities, relative to the outermost regions of space, that approach the speed of light then the extra mass would be a result of these velocities.
I find it funny that you are fighting about which -THEORY- is correct.
How about you're both wrong? What say you, then?
Seriously, take a deep breath, and step back... now, re-invent some new theories. Forget what you think you know about Einstein, what you were brainwashed in public schools, and try this again.
I PROMISE you'll find another way around all this. You'll see that it still all fits together (without the restrictions and imaginary numbers).
Does the scale of things affect the effect of dark matter?
Our little solar system presents slower orbits the further out you go. etc. But certain galaxies seem to have some sort of acceptance of dark matter in their orbiting patterns.
Is this because, at a smaller scale, dark matter is less relevant?
Galaxies seem to operate with it in mind, while our solar system seems to ignore/refute it, so to speak.
The expansion of the universe is thought to have began at greater than the speed of light. I can only wonder what the perspective of the outer rim of the matter might have been.
The speed of light is not an impassable limit - it is time that prevents us from seeing anything go faster. So things could be going much faster than ~186,000 miles per second.
The speed of gravity is the speed of light. Furthermore, the reason c is the limit is because when you reach that speed, space and time doesn't exist from a photon's perspective because of the lack of a frame of reference.
Einstein never made a definitive connection between the effects of motion on matter and even the perception of the passing of time much less the general passing of time in respect to the object in motion. He was more or less just wondering. If he couldn't make that connection; I can't understand why anyone else would assert it. Time and time again it seems the context of the study needs the most assertion.
Just a guess but those speed measurements sound like they are wrong.
I would venture a bet that dark matter is not an issue.
I would suppose that errors in time are really what is going on. Or perhaps black-holes which we really can't measure (talk about not following human contrived physics.)
The brightness method is inherantly flawed. I mean its not like the Jupiter puts out 1000th of the light of the sun just because it has that much mass. I mean, think about a blackhole. It puts out no light.
How do you come to the conclusion that the difference in observed mass is not due to the black hole at the center of the galaxy? If I understand the methodology correctly, there is no way you could make that determination. The black hole contributes to the mass, but not to the brightness, therefore a higher orbital mass would be expected. Certainly the difference seems too large even to me.
Would the concentrated mass perhaps result in a different behaviour of stars in the center of the galaxy?
@KeyserX The issue isn't the speed teyre travelling it's the difference in speed. If the black hole were more massive, objects closer to it would be moving faster than they are.
There is a paradox here. If the mass that was missing was in the black hole the stars whose orbits are further out would travel slower but the speed of the stars remain relatively the same. I believe they are not getting the real speeds because they are misinterpreting red shift to determine the velocities. Same thing for universe expansion.
Relativity is as much proven as all other scientific theories. Relativity, Quantum theory, evolution, nuclear theory, germ theory. These all have physical observational evidence.
Question, if you broke up the sun and spread it out in a spherical shape around the solar system, would the earth speed pick up? Would the earth remain in orbit? The answers are no and no. Dark matter doesn't explain the orbital speeds of the stars in the galaxy. If any thing having more mass outward would slow down or disrupt orbits. The mass would have to be in the center of the ecliptic. Calculating the mass of a galaxy using a star that you know is not behaving like it should is wrong.
@shagster1970. That would explain a lot. I mean, don't we know what we know by observing the gravity of the stuff nearest us? Maybe once you reach a certain mass, things start going wonky.
Or maybe I'm just talking out of my ass; I'm no physicist. Nice idea, though.
Perhaps at the centre of such large objects (galaxies) - the combining of objects and their gravity has a multiplication effect rather than addition. ie; there's a super black hole or similar that has the gravity required but doesnt emit light. ???
It could be anything as long as it doesn't emit light, but silicon is rather rare in the universe, which "should" be mostly hydrogen given the nucleosynthesis theory
The term "dark" as used here doesn't mean it's color as we perceive it so much as it describes how little we know about the stuff. We know it's there, we can roughly estimate the mass of it, but otherwise we really don't know anything.
Our lack of knowledge about it is why it's called dark.
brilliant video
thegeffc 2 weeks ago
Very enjoyable thank you
khijasmith 1 month ago
great video thanks
alexasmithy 1 month ago
would black holes contribute anything to dark matter?
ComputerNerd666 1 month ago
Cool vids. I like this vids
directorygod 1 month ago
I would say the Brightness method is more accurate, the orbital method is just absurd (wouldve made sense if a galaxy was a single big light emitting body, but it consists of more empty spaces tha actual stars). Its just like observing a 1kg of cotton ball and 1 kg of steel from a distance and assuming the cotton ball has 300 times more mass than the steel ball. I dont think the brightness of a star is directly proportinal to its mass and is proportional in all cases.
xxxaudiophilexxx 1 month ago
Maybe all these stars are ascended life forms, habituating dyson spheres.
:)
superdiza 2 months ago
these are all calculated using assumptions :( no wonder shit never adds up it would be like trying to balance the books with only guesses as to how much money was spent
KaylinJH 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is he a fucking retard or something?
0TylerDurden0 4 months ago
why am I watching this when I'm not in school...? I must be really bored haha :P
SearchForTheObvious 4 months ago
What if the supper massive black hole at the center would spin the other way around as the galaxy. Since its so massive it can effect space itself, Slowing down the turning speed of the stars that are near it. The closer its near the black hole the more it would be slow down. Isn't this possible? But I guess it would be weird for the black hole too spin the other way around. They said they saw it at 1000 galaxy's, but have they found any that where different?
NLwino 5 months ago
@NLwino It's the first time I hear such a theory, which seems to be very interesting. I have seen many documentaries about black holes, but no one of them refered to this. I mean the spinning. Seems logical, while newtron stars spin, why not the black holes? They are mass and matter anyway.
hrbear 5 months ago
What about planets and astroids, those dont emit light either or could reflect light in a different direction than the observer ... why couldn't that explain the difference?
sindarapos 5 months ago
@sindarapos Or the black holes.
hrbear 5 months ago
@sindarapos i hope you know those things arent even a percentage of everything...
TheOneRebornElyrize 1 month ago
@TheOneRebornElyrize No, I didn't know that. However, I'd rather go with xxxaudiophilexxx's more acurate explanation, who provides the argumentation for my doubts about the orbital method.
sindarapos 1 month ago
@sindarapos well i dont think youre gonna listen even if i explain it throughly.. so..yea..bye :P
TheOneRebornElyrize 1 month ago
@TheOneRebornElyrize Such a shame that you think of me that way. I'd love you to explain the details of this. I'm very interested in physics. I was just replying in such a crude manner because you were not helping me at all.
To me it sounded like: " ... you're wrong, you do know that? Because if you don't, than ur even a bigger fool".
sindarapos 1 month ago
@sindarapos ah well.. thought the same of you when you wrote that way xD though i think youre far more interested in this than i xD
TheOneRebornElyrize 1 month ago
@TheOneRebornElyrize Hehe, oh well. Back to wikipedia, or other youtube video's it is :P.
Do you have any other sources you might want to point out?
sindarapos 1 month ago
@sindarapos well as i said, im not nearly as interested as you so im not rly memorizing stuff >.> i just like looking at theories and stuff so..yea.. sorry for not being much help ^^'
TheOneRebornElyrize 1 month ago
the narrator is a faggot
yahoopl3 6 months ago
SR suggested space was nothing but EM quanta (e.g. photons carrying light waves), then GR conceded that EM quanta did not define space and suggested matter requires no quantum interaction to maintain a curved space, just quanta for oscillating, and I've no idea what is proposed for monotonic motion, because a Fourier transform window is needed and an ideal window is perpetually frustratable. Anyway, saying the space and the light are both bent seems redundant, although space is not light.
CACBCCCU 6 months ago
a vaaaast collection of staaaaars
Collision5152 6 months ago 5
Anyone else think that this SandustanBrasov, who is spamming this thread, might be a potential terrorist? I'm normally not one to jump to such a conclusion. He's probably only a kook. But the guy is creepy. He seems to understand a little scientific terminology. But overall, he speaks gibberish. He's the absolute archetype of what I imagine when I think about the guys who perpetrated 911.
sbergman27 7 months ago
this docu is fucked up by the narater!
tommy1973able 7 months ago
SandustanBrasov
And yet, we can see, we can visualize the ethereal matter. The scheme to one device for to visualize the ethereal matter: EXIST! And this device it can realize!
My e-mail: s.stan65@yahoo.com
You Tube: sandustanBrasov’s Channel
sandustanBrasov 7 months ago
• SandustanBrasov
The matter of the our terrestrial globe has four states of aggregation: solid, liquid, gseous and ethereal and not three after official science. The matter on which we see it, proceed from the ethereal matter, which from cancentration in concentration it had constituted in the electrons, in protons respectivel;y in the atoms of the chemical elements which had overtaken at the gaseous, liquid and solid state. All the matter on which we see it, is condensed ether.
sandustanBrasov 7 months ago
• SandustanBrasov
The PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL MATTER is the visible matter with free eye and is constituted from atoms of the chemical elements. The PHYSICAL-ETHEREAL MATTER is a matter with atoms more small with 7..8 order of dimension than the atoms of chemical elements, and the bodies formed from this matter are invisible for the human eye. The ETHEREAL PHYSICS it occupy with the study of the ethereal matters, but which was abandoned in the XX century, because in 1905 A.Einstein excludes the ether
sandustanBrasov 7 months ago
• SandustanBrasov But the ETHER is a physical reality constituted from a very small matter, invisible for human eye, and is formed from atoms more small with 7...8 order of dimension than the atoms of the chemical elements. The matter of the ether penetrate in all the visible bodies and is the physical matter which fills both the interplanetary space and the interatomic space. The ether is a matter with mass and weigth, being subdued and she the action of the universal attraction law.
sandustanBrasov 7 months ago
• SandustanBrasov
Through the relativity theory to Einstein of over century, it hold with strenght -as a conspiracy a general activity of intellectual stultify of the planetary population. from relativity theory proceed the notion of: singularity, Big bang, black holes and holes of worm. From 1905 and till now in 2011, the disciples of the Einstein, preach with contumely as scientific elements of high class these theoretical confusions, these absurdities from which they had made a business.
sandustanBrasov 8 months ago
• SandustanBrasov
The science has and history. In the Fundamental Principle of Democrit(470..380BC) it show:"From nothing nothing's born, nothing that exist can not be destroyed and any transformation consist from a reunion and separation...Out of atoms and ether. all rest is not otherwise than rationament and not exist...The spirit as well as the ether consist of a small and spherical atoms, very mobile, atoms that their movement form the phenomenon of life".
sandustanBrasov 8 months ago
• SandustanBrasov
It popularize the fantastical theories and stantardized theories with which it terrorize the inhabitants the Earth, after what Einstein with relativity theory had blocked the science of the century XX. Sptephen Hawking and roger Penrose had demonstrated in 1967 that the black holes proceed from the relativity theory. How it can conceive and it can say that the heart of the one black hole is a gravitational singularity whose volume tend to zero and whose mass tend to infinite?
sandustanBrasov 8 months ago
• SandustanBrasov
The notion of dark matter and dark energy proceed from theoretical physics, from relativity theory of the A. Einstein, from the mistaken interpretation of the physical reality. Something exist indeed: and matter and energy; but is the much ethereal matter and the her energys from the her frame. Dark energy and cosmic acceleration are a failure of relativity of the Einstein.
sandustanBrasov 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
• SandustanBrasov In 1905, A.Einstein conclude that the ether hasn't a correspondent in reality and constitute not a medium which let can serve as reference system. Thus Einstein renounced to the ether notion and absolute space and emits the two restricted relativity principles. By it content the second principle excludes the ether, impose as limit of bodies' movement - the light speed - and denatured completely the classic dynamics reality.
sandustanBrasov 8 months ago
Scientist are known to make mistakes. Like noncoding DNA being called Junk and then actually finding out its not, or that white light was a fundamental color until Newton showed otherwise, Plum pudding model, the Atomic theory before the discovery of subatomic particles...and on and on... Dark Matter along with Higgs will be another footnote of science mistakes....
deadbirdflyinghome 8 months ago
is it likely that black holes or similar singularities make up a large percentage of dark matter?
greycloud24 8 months ago
So,like..... galaxies are the nucleus?...:D
M0rdacious 8 months ago
god must be fond of flash lights :)
bboyzjimmy1 9 months ago
What morons. They did not even include the mass of the singularity in the middle of the galaxy holding it all together. What "dark" matter???
trentcreek 9 months ago
The architecture of the worlds go through several metamorphyc stages before they fully develop. The primary face is that of a sun which consists of gigantic magnetic spheres that are inundated by a sea of ions. The next face is that of the development of a skin upon which mushroom structures develop that evedntually sustain the crust of the planet. This entire process starts at an approximate rate of 3 billionths of one inch per second which the size of the atom.
jqs1943 9 months ago
If I had a nickel for every member of KISS that wore makeup, I'd be rich.
jebsievers 11 months ago
I discover dark matter every time I fart, can't see it but sure do know its there!
ScreamMode1337 11 months ago
Wouldn't that unseen mass that does not emit light be planets, brown dwarfs, blackholes, and interstellar dust?
music2012 11 months ago
@music2012 that's what occured to me when watching it
TeslaRifle 9 months ago
Hey has anyone ever wondered about the validity of Fg = Gmm/r2 ? I know that newton derived the constant G through calculations within our own solar system. But how can we assume that G is still constant when we are calculating masses in different galaxies that are so far away? Maybe the value of G is only constant for our solar system and not the rest of the universe. This could be another explaination for the speed of the stars instead of dark matter. Its just my opinion
DoctaRichiee 11 months ago
obviously the brightness method ignores the mass of gas , black holes and any other non shining stellar matter while calculating mass.
sushanalone 1 year ago
I hate the way this guy talks.... I don't know why, but there's just something about the way he pronounces everything.... it's getting on my nerves...
bbphnix 1 year ago 56
@bbphnix yea somestimes people say stuff like they are holding their nose
sam9072000 11 months ago
@bbphnix Off button broken on your PC?
SpasticatedCunt 11 months ago
@bbphnix Good comment for this video.
777shaitan666 11 months ago
@bbphnix
How cares about his sexual testes, he is scientist and works for benefits of humanity - that what counts.
AlliedExplore 9 months ago
@AlliedExplore who said anything about testes?
flaze3 9 months ago
@bbphnix At least he has something great to say :)
brongarago 7 months ago
@bbphnix Not to mention what he looks like when he talks like that.
supergsx 6 months ago
@bbphnix its like a gay austrailian with down syndrome
AlteredVisionz 5 months ago
@bbphnix
It's all Australian and shit
Chemicallobodomy 4 months ago
@bbphnix Just out of curiosity, by any chance are you american?
boipinoi604 1 month ago
@bbphnix he sounds very condescending
ThePengwyn 1 week ago
There is something that I don't understand about this series:
Why would dark matter make it so that all the stars spin around the center of the galaxy with the same speed? Wouldn't a greater mass throughout the whole galaxy and beyond just increase the speed of all stars according to the gravitational law? That way, the stars still have a difference in speed depending on their distance to the center..
Other than that, a great documentary!
THUMBS UP SO PEOPLE CAN SEE
timboardin 1 year ago
Question.., what happens if some of those flashlights are in front of one or more flashlights? Or rather, what if one star is blocking the light from a few stars behind it from our perspective. Would that not account for some missing mass in the brightness method? This sounds so basic and logical to me. What am I missing here?
kandrkandr 1 year ago
@kandrkandr you see it a 2d that is why there was less stars than the pther method if you wanted to get all light emiting matter you would need to convert tha in to 3d light using complicted method i don't know
dingo596 1 year ago
am I the only one who thinks that that guy is gay?
miracleman1234567 1 year ago
@miracleman1234567 yes and no
axedelahorce 1 year ago
@miracleman1234567 he's super ghey
jnthnbush 1 year ago
@miracleman1234567 no, I just think his way of speaking is irritating.
flaze3 9 months ago
The more I see videos about the universe, the more similitude I see with atoms. Couldn't there be a similitude in the behavior of atoms and the behavior of whole galaxies? perhaps the comparison could be drawn as electrons = planets, and nuclei = suns.
But then what would be the parallel of black holes in atoms? could they be a constant at different sizes? like the micro black holes in atoms and the actual gigantic black holes in outer space. what do u think??
JoelViAl 1 year ago
dark matter is the byproduct of the mass that falls into black holes.
gaynorglowellxsingh 1 year ago
@gaynorglowellxsingh thats not a bad theory
Insurrection05 1 year ago
How does using the Doppler effect work?
The Doppler causes a shift in frequency, but how is the original frequency determined? Is it the assumption that the light produced by other stars produces the same amount of energy as our sun?
TymeMastery 1 year ago
@TymeMastery The original frequency is determined by identifying sets of related spectral emission lines as belonging to specific electron orbital transitions. The most well known way of estimating distance to other galaxies, besides Hubble's constant and as a check on it, is to use a certain type of supernova event as a "standard candle" brightness reference. Not an expert, but that's my understanding of it.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
who dislikes videos on facts? just asking.
Sombomombo 1 year ago
@Sombomombo This comment is full of truth. And hilarious. LMFAO. It's like having a video stating that we live on Earth and people disliking it.
TheLegendLeviathan 1 year ago 2
@TheLegendLeviathan It might be people who just don't like science? Who knows?
olvin1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
True Free energy devices exist,But the Oil companies want these technologies unknown to the masses,Find a motor that needs no fuel or input at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Be a part of the energy revolution!
porscheghcje 1 year ago
Fail in title: Sun is only 1 and thats our Sun, but there are bilions and bilions Stars!
nafativedec 1 year ago
@nafativedec Actually, you can call them suns. It's been done by astrophyicists like Carl Sagan to illustrate to the public that the Sun is just like all the other stars, and is nothing special.
You wouldn't object to someone talking about "A thousand jupiters" when talking about exoplanet discovery would you? It's quite obvious that they are referring to objects much like the Sun. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the use of expressing things in that way to the public.
AleximusMaximus 1 year ago
I wish I had a nickel for ever time I've watched a science video that explained the doppler effect using an ambulance. ;-)
sbergman27 1 year ago 86
@sbergman27 lol when i explain it i use a train :P
nybotheveg 7 months ago
@nybotheveg It's definitely time for some creativity. How about putting a snake in a coworkers desk drawer and describing her scream as she runs down the hallway?
sbergman27 7 months ago
@sbergman27 that would explain the effect to people standing down the hall
nybotheveg 7 months ago
@nybotheveg Granted, the extant audience may be small. But if we could elevate the "snake in the office drawer" trick to the level of a fad many more people would understand doppler shift without resorting to outmoded notions like trains.
Of course, we'd still have the problem of shifting the concept to light wavelength. Maybe we could use limericks? How about this:
There was a young lady named Bright
Who could travel faster than light
Oops. That's only for relativity. I'll ponder some more..
sbergman27 7 months ago
@sbergman27 If I had a penny for every time I have heared that analogy....I'd have 4 pound and seventy six pence! It is an effective comparison though so....better the devil you know....you know?
ferkinskin 7 months ago
@sbergman27 better than using J biebs and his decent into puberty, know what i mean? know what i mean? nudge nudge say no more! say no more
KaylinJH 3 months ago
I was watching sumthing about how Dark Matter Can cause the freeze or sumthing like that. The fate of the Universe can freeze and like stars disappear and the whole universe will b cold.
narutocursemark 1 year ago
@narutocursemark No. Dark matter can't cause freezing. Dark matter's mass helps to hold the Universe together. With too little mass, it expands forever, gradually cooling down, and freezing into a situation which is, ironically, called "Heat Death". With greater mass we get a "Big Crunch" as space-time crashes back down. It appears that things are finely balanced. Which still means heat-death (freezing). But don't worry. Trillions of years and all that.
sbergman27 7 months ago
@sbergman27 No I didnt say it CAN CAUSE FREEZING. I said it can cause sumthing scientists called "The Freeze" But I didnt kno wat it was called bak then, and well, I still dont lols. But yea Dark Matter Expands the universe while its gravity holding it down. They think 70% of the universe is dark matter. And yes I already know how the Heat Death and Big Crunch is caused. No need for the comment really.
narutocursemark 7 months ago
@narutocursemark The terminology is a bit confusing. The best info we have (which comes from the WMAP probe) shows that the universe is made up of 70% Dark Energy, 26% Dark Matter, and 4% regular matter/energy. Dark Energy can, indeed, cause a big freeze. It induces a repulsive force. A sort of negative gravity. The thing I said about "finely balanced" was wrong. It's true regarding spatial geometry. But we're looking at an ever-accelerating expansion of the Universe. A Big Freeze, if you will.
sbergman27 7 months ago
I was looking at the show through the worm hole, a cable science series narrated by Morgan Freeman. The name of that show was "The riddle of black holes". And they were saying that their could be up to one hundred million black holes in our galaxy alone. So if each black hole had the average mass of 338 to 400 solar masses that could account for that missing mass, and is was said that the black hole at the center of our galaxy has 4 million solar masses. This is an amazing univese.
gaynorglowellxsingh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EnRage690 1 year ago
General Relativity is Newton's gravitational force mediated at light-speed, so GR's gravity waves travel at lightspeed, also combined with the idea that light energy behaves as if the light has mass, with consequently gravitationally-curved light that is supposed to be light following a shortest (yet curved) path through space between its source and receiver.
Gravitons allow for a more complex model of GR-like gravity, with an intrinsic wavelength and with detailed absortion-emission rules.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
Here's a rough analogy, suppose you have a red-hot iron sphere in open space. The sphere cools evenly on all sides. The current model of gravity is a bit like saying that if you put two of these cooling spheres side-by-side, they'll still cool evenly on all sides. My suggestion is analogous to recognizing that the sides of the spheres that face each other will stay hotter longer, as heat radiation bounces back and forth between the spheres.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
Continuing - the graviton loop idea I'm tentatively suggesting here is that gravitons may not necessarily be emitted from a particle of matter in such a way that the gravitons go out in all directions equally. Instead, gravitons might tend to be emitted most in the direction from which the most incoming gravitons are coming.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
Using Hoag's galaxy as a template for reformulating gravity, and looking at gravity as a graviton-mediated force instead of a spacetime fabric, I've decided gravity needs an intrinsic cosine factor correction, cos(kd), multiplying Newton's traditional G*m1*m2/d^2 formula, however that correction is not enough.
Supposing that the nature of gravitons biases the movement of gravitons from the core to the stars surrounding it and vice-versa in a loop may explain the rest of the dark matter effect.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
I love the name Dark Matter, but I get the feeling is the scientists way of saying "Fuck if we know" Although the fact that we can even know this much from such subtle differences speaks volumes of how sophisticated our knowledge is of the cosmos and the fundamental laws that rule all things.
yeah i'm a nerd
grimwatcher 1 year ago
unfortunately the animated galaxies have mistakes, galaxies always turns against clockwise not clockwise, that should be fixed in future videos, otherwise its still a good documentation.
jacan3 1 year ago
@jacan3 hello?...if you are on the other side of the galaxy then it would be rotating counter-clockwise
kurumako 1 year ago
how does this make 19 year old pom-pom girls hot and bothered for egghead rocket scientists?...
teamufo1 1 year ago
if a gophers are digging a holes in a golf course...how many beers will it take for mr ward cleaver to fill that hole full of piss?
teamufo1 1 year ago
is this why the minn vikings and buffalo bills have lost 4 superbowls each?...is this why "the baby bears still suck?".../ @milwaukee
teamufo1 1 year ago
how can we apply this theory to sabermetrics in major league baseball?...all sports are pure physics!...how does this affect a brewer spitball thrown at a cubs batters ugly head? /@ milwaukee
teamufo1 1 year ago
Is their a connection between the missing matter in our universe and black holes,and is it possable that dark matter is the byproduct of the matter that falls into black holes?
gaynorglowellxsingh 1 year ago
@gaynorglowellxsingh when i was 15 i thought that maybe suns where hawkings white holes, but my theory was completely off!
azmanabdula 1 year ago
Maybe the center of the galaxy, which is an unknown entity has the missing mass, either that or the earth created equation is wrong.
bicnarok 1 year ago
@bicnarok I'm sure they have accounted for that using other methods. We know of several objects that don't emit light, such as black holes, planets, nebulae, etc.
Hedning1390 1 year ago
39 or 46 billion? make up yer mind.
hornetobiker 1 year ago
if you watch it. it explains there are 39 bil MISSING suns. but there is mass for a total of 46bil. but they cant se/find the 39bil
BaneOfFreeSpeech 1 year ago
@yourboiiacee.what da fuk is u talkin bout
*the
*fuck
*are
*you
*talking
*about?
Do you know sometimes when you type and see a red underline that means you spelled the word wrong? One or two words is fine, but 90% of the sentence really isn't. You will not get taken seriously if you keep that up.
chilleffect 1 year ago
so are they saying that scientists know the mass of the galaxy, but it isn't giving out the amount of light equivalent to the amount of stars/mass. are they saying that the dark matter is adding to the mass of the galaxy itself?
dont call me stupid or anything, but im only 15 and i enjoy things about space, physics, etc.
dooshtoomun 1 year ago
thats basicly it the galixys are moving to fast making the amount of visable mass less then there should be in order for the stars to orbit that fast dark matter is basicly the extra additive that makes up for the missing mass
silentpoet1988 1 year ago
damn i tryed readin yall comments n jus said to myself....
am i da only guy dat talks normal around here
YourBoiiAcee 1 year ago
are you serious!?
*tried
*reading
*y'all
*and
*just
*the
*that
*here?
chilleffect 1 year ago
what da fuk is u talkin bout
YourBoiiAcee 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yourboiiacee.what da fuk is u talkin bout
*the
*fuck
*are
*you
*talking
*about?
Do you know sometimes when you type and see a red underline that means you spelled the word wrong? One or two words is fine, but 90% of the sentence really isn't. You will not get taken seriously if you keep that up
chilleffect 1 year ago
Hold on now, if the predictions for the rotation of a galaxy is based on the assumption that it will behave as it does in our solar system, then isnt it appropriate to assume that 99% of the mass of the galaxy will be behaving as an 'object' at the center? Bam, found your dark matter, dibs on the Nobel :D
jwfcp 1 year ago
So if the galaxies have velocities, relative to the outermost regions of space, that approach the speed of light then the extra mass would be a result of these velocities.
seanmPWH 1 year ago
so... the hot-ish asian chick is doing her "research" by looking at youtube documentaries? ... ;-P
YoLninYo 1 year ago
so the standard model is subatomic structures arranged like a galaxy.
b29349 1 year ago
hm..that sopost dark matter and the galaxy in the interior,remindes me a lot like an atom..
maybe life is just simple;micro atom to macro atom and/or vice!
i dont know. . .very interesting video indeed :)
Jonnyjy 1 year ago
I find it funny that you are fighting about which -THEORY- is correct.
How about you're both wrong? What say you, then?
Seriously, take a deep breath, and step back... now, re-invent some new theories. Forget what you think you know about Einstein, what you were brainwashed in public schools, and try this again.
I PROMISE you'll find another way around all this. You'll see that it still all fits together (without the restrictions and imaginary numbers).
2+2=4
2*2=4
1+1+2=4
2²=4
BaseStationZero 1 year ago
Imaginary number are a very important algebraic structure.Also they're just bad ass.
mage1over137 1 year ago
Aside from the science in the video, I like the animation with the stars falling all over each other. That's cute :-)
opiates 1 year ago
I'm curious and ignorant.
Does the scale of things affect the effect of dark matter?
Our little solar system presents slower orbits the further out you go. etc. But certain galaxies seem to have some sort of acceptance of dark matter in their orbiting patterns.
Is this because, at a smaller scale, dark matter is less relevant?
Galaxies seem to operate with it in mind, while our solar system seems to ignore/refute it, so to speak.
What happens to it in between these scales?
naganokumas 1 year ago
Yeah! Nice try.
MrDigitalforms 1 year ago
I must be missing posts or something.
MrDigitalforms 1 year ago
What just happened?
MrDigitalforms 1 year ago
Hmmm...dis place of ours seems rather crowded ? ( :
Hemulen40 1 year ago
@michalchik: It's always nice to have a scientist keeping things in perspective.
MrDigitalforms 1 year ago
@TheFifthApes If that were true the sky would be very dark at night.
MrDigitalforms 1 year ago
The expansion of the universe is thought to have began at greater than the speed of light. I can only wonder what the perspective of the outer rim of the matter might have been.
MrDigitalforms 1 year ago
@MrDigitalforms The universe is still expanding faster than light and it's speed it's speed and acceleration is increasing!
TheFifthApes 1 year ago
Our eyes rely on photons to see. The limit is ours.
MrDigitalforms 1 year ago
Chew on this:
The speed of light is not an impassable limit - it is time that prevents us from seeing anything go faster. So things could be going much faster than ~186,000 miles per second.
What is the speed of gravity? ;)
BaseStationZero 1 year ago
@BaseStationZero
The speed of gravity is the speed of light. Furthermore, the reason c is the limit is because when you reach that speed, space and time doesn't exist from a photon's perspective because of the lack of a frame of reference.
bmlnZ2Vycw0K 1 year ago
Einstein never made a definitive connection between the effects of motion on matter and even the perception of the passing of time much less the general passing of time in respect to the object in motion. He was more or less just wondering. If he couldn't make that connection; I can't understand why anyone else would assert it. Time and time again it seems the context of the study needs the most assertion.
MrDigitalforms 1 year ago
LOL That's the first time I've ever seen anyone quote Freud in a reply concerning Astrophysics. This place is good for a laugh too.
MrDigitalforms 1 year ago
Just a guess but those speed measurements sound like they are wrong.
I would venture a bet that dark matter is not an issue.
I would suppose that errors in time are really what is going on. Or perhaps black-holes which we really can't measure (talk about not following human contrived physics.)
Sometimes - a cigar is just a cigar.
FreeAgain2 1 year ago
The brightness method is inherantly flawed. I mean its not like the Jupiter puts out 1000th of the light of the sun just because it has that much mass. I mean, think about a blackhole. It puts out no light.
Keeban3 1 year ago
How do you come to the conclusion that the difference in observed mass is not due to the black hole at the center of the galaxy? If I understand the methodology correctly, there is no way you could make that determination. The black hole contributes to the mass, but not to the brightness, therefore a higher orbital mass would be expected. Certainly the difference seems too large even to me.
Would the concentrated mass perhaps result in a different behaviour of stars in the center of the galaxy?
KeyserX 1 year ago
@KeyserX The issue isn't the speed teyre travelling it's the difference in speed. If the black hole were more massive, objects closer to it would be moving faster than they are.
TheFifthApes 1 year ago
Sorry @KeyserX, I didn't see your post other wise I wouldn't have repeated your comment.
Eugensdiet 1 year ago
There is a paradox here. If the mass that was missing was in the black hole the stars whose orbits are further out would travel slower but the speed of the stars remain relatively the same. I believe they are not getting the real speeds because they are misinterpreting red shift to determine the velocities. Same thing for universe expansion.
Eugensdiet 1 year ago
That guy is retarded.
Tippitapitus 1 year ago
@Tippitapitus He's just being stubborn. He doesn't want to admit he's wrong. He has his beliefs and no amount of evidence will change his mind.
TheFifthApes 1 year ago
@TheFifthApes I meant the narrator is retarded.
Tippitapitus 1 year ago
photons are massless.
zimgirfreak 1 year ago
@zimgirfreak Only when they're at rest.
TheFifthApes 1 year ago
Relativity is as much proven as all other scientific theories. Relativity, Quantum theory, evolution, nuclear theory, germ theory. These all have physical observational evidence.
zimgirfreak 1 year ago
Why, why, oh why is there on every science video ALWAYS at least one uneducated fundie jackass spewing their stupidity all over the place?
IconOfSin88 1 year ago 2
Question, if you broke up the sun and spread it out in a spherical shape around the solar system, would the earth speed pick up? Would the earth remain in orbit? The answers are no and no. Dark matter doesn't explain the orbital speeds of the stars in the galaxy. If any thing having more mass outward would slow down or disrupt orbits. The mass would have to be in the center of the ecliptic. Calculating the mass of a galaxy using a star that you know is not behaving like it should is wrong.
Eugensdiet 1 year ago
More! More! Where are the parts 3 and 4? I need them... I need to know... Please. please, pleeeeease!!!!
Thanks for the awesome channel!
tommytalks77 1 year ago
The narrator is such a hot nerd. lol
devilmirror1 1 year ago
Or perhaps our understanding of gravity is flawed when talking about super massive objects. ???
shagster1970 1 year ago
@shagster1970. That would explain a lot. I mean, don't we know what we know by observing the gravity of the stuff nearest us? Maybe once you reach a certain mass, things start going wonky.
Or maybe I'm just talking out of my ass; I'm no physicist. Nice idea, though.
nemo3590 1 year ago
Perhaps at the centre of such large objects (galaxies) - the combining of objects and their gravity has a multiplication effect rather than addition. ie; there's a super black hole or similar that has the gravity required but doesnt emit light. ???
shagster1970 1 year ago
3:41 dooooooooood
Mastan0 1 year ago
Gah, every time the narrator came on screen I was just "get off. Get off the screen. Now"
TGGeko 1 year ago
I would say you are the idiot. String theory cannot be proven or disproven. But it is STILL a theory.
So far nobody has been able to prove or disprove realtivity. Would you say that changes it to the hypothesis of relativity?
Being able to do something in principle is not the same as being able to do it in the real world.
beechgrovejoe 1 year ago
Relativity has been proven with experiments using satellites and aircraft carrying atomic clocks.
sci0nparag0n 1 year ago 2
Then you know very little about the subject other than what you have heard in popular media.
In fact you know very little about what Einstein said about his own theory.
Go learn about he subject before you start making dumb comments that show how little you know about the theory.
beechgrovejoe 1 year ago
You're a moron, truly. You have NO IDEA what you're even talking about. Hell, you can look this stuff up on Wikipedia for Christ's sake.
sci0nparag0n 1 year ago
But only a truly stupid person would allow something like Wikipedia do the thinking for them.
beechgrovejoe 1 year ago
I was only demonstrating how easy it is to get basic information you troll. Piss on you.
sci0nparag0n 1 year ago
Thank you for a good demonstration of how a science kooks make their point.
beechgrovejoe 1 year ago
Question: could 'dark matter' be nothing more than huge lumps of pure silicon?
Silicon absorbs huge amounts of light, hence pure silicon appears black
dobberdoss 1 year ago
It could be anything as long as it doesn't emit light, but silicon is rather rare in the universe, which "should" be mostly hydrogen given the nucleosynthesis theory
TGGeko 1 year ago
A question for you intellectuals,
As I am uneducated on "The Mystery of Dark Matter" or space time.
If dark matter is calculated to only be a certain distance from the star (the blue mass),
What's the "space" between these Dark Matter blue masses called?
Really Dark Matter? :-)
Thanks...
Dazis4Real 1 year ago
Then shouldn't it be called "clear matter"?
nemo3590 1 year ago
The term "dark" as used here doesn't mean it's color as we perceive it so much as it describes how little we know about the stuff. We know it's there, we can roughly estimate the mass of it, but otherwise we really don't know anything.
Our lack of knowledge about it is why it's called dark.