Open main menu

Talk:Dark fluid


Super-Flexible-Continuum [SFC] may be the most appropriate name for the 'Dark Fluid'Edit

By the term 'fluid' we generally mean some water-like substance composed of atoms; the constituent atoms of the fluid glide over one-another making the substance 'fluid'. Whereas 'continuum' is not composed of atoms which can move independently of their neighbouring atoms. In the 'continuum' whenever a small, labelled portion of it moves in any direction, the neighbouring parts also have to move, and complete a closed loop. Whenever a labelled portion in a continuum starts moving cyclically, coming back to its original position after every cycle, then such a motion gives rise to a spherical standing-wave in the continuum. The so called 'particle' of 'matter' is nothing but such a spherical-standing-wave generated in a super-flexible-continuum according to Hasmukh K. Tank [Ref. Some conjectures on the nature of 'energy' and 'matter', published in Science and Culture April, 1988. Published by Indian Science News Association, Kolkata] Formation of the spherical-standing-wave causes the surrounding continuum to shrink; and if there are two or more spherical-standing-waves, then the continuum between them has to suitably get stretched to compensat for the shrinking near the 'particles'. Tank has used the term 'super-flexible-continuum' SFC for that 'continuum' which is all-pervading in space and everpresent in time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This is utter nonsense. PianoDan (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Very strong statement without citationEdit

"Dark fluid goes beyond dark matter and dark energy in that it predicts a continuous range of attractive and repulsive qualities, under various matter density cases. Indeed, dark fluid reproduces various other gravitational theories as special cases within it, e.g. inflation, quintessence, k-essence, f(R), Generalized Einstein-Aether f(K), MOND, TeVeS, BSTV, etc. It also suggests new models such as a certain f(K+R) model, which suggests intriguing corrections to MOND depending on redshift and density[citation needed]."

This is one of those statements that should really have a paper attached to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8a0:7382:f601:1070:8bce:57a5:958c (talk) 13:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

  Done. Happy New Year! Paine  19:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Undone Heh, you cited PediaPress, citeception :-) -- (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


I suspect this concept is a Wikipedia original. Now, I'm sure some ideas have been published under the name "dark fluid", but Wikipedia claims (lead sentence): "In astronomy and cosmology, dark fluid is an alternative theory to both dark matter and dark energy and attempts to explain both phenomena in a single framework." Wikipedia is claiming some sort of overarching theory/definition for people who use the term "dark fluid", and I find this claim suspicious. -- (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

inSPIRE-HEP [1] references 73 papers with "Dark Fluid" in their titles, and most of them discuss unification or coupling of dark energy and dark matter, so it is clearly not a Wikipedia original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Most of them do, meaning many of them don't? Well that's already a problem. And the ones that do, are they all talking about the same theory? Looking at the first three items in the search result, I think the answer is no. Note that it is not sufficient to use the tag "dark fluid" and be talking about unifying the dark sector. For starters, this article currently claims dark fluid is an alternative to GR. I don't think the first two items on the search result modify GR. The article goes on to tell us more about what "dark fluid" is all about. Apparently it accomodates inflation, quintessence, MOND, TeVeS... truly conceptually ergodic! --God made the integers (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC) (the unregistered first poster in this section is me)

Closer to truthEdit

Dark fluid is closer to truth, but without a relativistic equilibrium mechanism it makes no sense. Be more analytical and write types. This article is incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4114:C800:2871:4943:BCD5:341C (talk) 02:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

add dark seesaw types. That seesawness is fundamental to dark fluid theory; otherwise we have again the old separate darkmattenergic theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4114:C800:2871:4943:BCD5:341C (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

A mistakeEdit

A mistake to explain galactic dark matter, is that the outter stars of a galaxy, are also affected by the void, the void has faster flow of time, thus these afar stars look to move faster in relation to us. Others claim that "flow of time" leaks out from the outter stars, simply because are at the final frontier; thus don't move faster in general, but relativistically faster in relation to us. These people did claim that in our solar system, the phenomenon doesn't occur, because it affects only larger scales, as a bigger level of magnitude gravity, or gravity B. Some ideas like that are silly, but we must find the types and add them. This is an encyclopedia, thus we should reveal all opinions. If you don't like a silly opinion, write few words. Even say it's a mistake. Because some students might claim that we humans weren't able to try in the past; but it's a big lie!

Is the dark fluid theory a different theory or simply a different way to say things?Edit

Some people claim that both separatists (dark matter vs dark energy) and darkfluidists are correct (if all of them improve their maths). They claim that we can express these phenomena as separate or continual. Others claim that a separation does occur, iff observed from the correct order of magnitude. For a Planckian observer there is a continuum of phenomena with some regional statistical characteristics, and for a human observer who is lager and of a way slower perceptual rate, these statistical phenomena accumulate as "particles". It is crucial to mention that also! It is so crucial, that if you don't mention it, there is no point to write the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4114:C800:2871:4943:BCD5:341C (talk) 03:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat seems like electromagnetism, to me. At times, we only look at the components, while at other times we consider them as one. StuRat (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Why "dubious"?Edit

AFAIK, the statement that "attempts to explain both phenomena in a single framework."[1][2][dubious – discuss] is not the very least dubious. The edit of adding [dubious - discuss] says "(remove PediaPress reference, {{Synthesis}})" but the links are both arxiv links and they very clearly claim that "Dark Energy and Dark Matter as a same", it seems that this edit misunderstands the usage of {{Synthesis}}. I propose that the dubiosity is removed. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Return to "Dark fluid" page.