>>12650857>>is it Bob Lazars isotope E115?Light passing thru a dust-cloud, etc; will act as a banpass or bandstop filter thus astronomers are able to tell by the line-spectrum what the cloud-material is composed of; nothing "matter" (elements/atoms) was detected.
>it almost does remind me of sci-fi tachyon fields or neutrino fieldstachyons are theoretical particles with always "velocity > light" so they'd not be stationary/clumping.
neutrino = nuclear byproduct. sun-fission, earth-core decay, etc unaffected by gravity don't clump.
>i just try to figure out how the subatomic particles would of been generatedDid you bother to read my post
>>12644020 & the further links therein?
>then perhaps it was generated from the big bang or by universes interactingThe Observable universe is ONLY the bit we can see, the "actual" universe is expected to be much bigger than just what we can see.
IF collisions occurred, it would be at the edge where we have no clue where it is.
ALL scientists stating the CMB cold spot is evidence of being hit by another universe have brain-damage.
>say if dark matter works like a lattice in a 3d object then the lattice of the universe itself would be able to resist the energys of a blackhole it's actually pretty simple when you just use basic math to compare energy levels if it was that way though you would think the dark matter web would alter blackholes as apposed to doing nothing hence i just viewed it was neutral gravitywut?
>i would think that gravity being neutral positive or negative would have to do with it's wave function motions.kind of close, but not really.
>as of now tho gravity is only know as a positive (anti gravity would be negative) i don't think the dark matter would need to be ionized to alter it it's gravity there is no such thing as exotic-matter with negative-mass.
>x-rays will illuminate it so you can see dark matteryes, very ordinary thing to be so
something would inevitably make it visible
