Belovelife's unification Theory

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by belovelife

as far as galaxy formation with hydrogen
its cold out there
and the hydrogen was probly solid

It's not that cold out there, hydrogen would need considerable pressure to be solid.

[belovelife]

You are probably right, but is it warm enough, before ignition event, for the hydrogen to
be more than a liquid.
hydrogen
melting point
14.01 K
(−259.14 °C, −434.45 °F)
boiling point
20.28 K
(−252.87 °C, −423.17 °F)

Although thie difference is a matter of 11.28degreesF
it could be the difference between active dark matter
and full ignition of dark matter.
[edit]
Although it is more likely for the dark mater to ignight
at a much higher rate of producing radiation. (impetali -> radiation+electrons)
In which case the hydrogen would be
a gas.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by belovelife

You are probably right, but is it warm enough, before ignition event, for the hydrogen to
be more than a liquid.
hydrogen
melting point
14.01 K
(−259.14 °C, −434.45 °F)
boiling point
20.28 K
(−252.87 °C, −423.17 °F)

Although thie difference is a matter of 11.28degreesF
it could be the difference between active dark matter
and full ignition of dark matter.
[edit]
Although it is more likely for the dark mater to ignight
at a much higher rate of producing radiation. (impetali -> radiation+electrons)
In which case the hydrogen would be
a gas.

The values of liquid and solid hydrogen are for Earth conditions, you are not going to find droplets of liquid hydrogen or hydrogen snow flakes in interstellar space. I'm not trying to rain on your parade but Dark matter is not hydrogen and Dark matter will not ignite and produce any radiation at all. The composition of theorized dark matter is unknown but it is thought to be completely non interactive with matter and electromagnetic energy. Linking to your own theory is cute but not a good way to show you are correct when going against mainstream science.

[belovelife]

Considering we are not sure of the true nature of dark matter,
I will agree with you.
Considering my theory goes against mainstream science, I
understand a well stated argument against my theory.
Considering my theory is a strange claim, unique within itself,
and has only itself to draw conclutions from, it should be able
to quote itself to draw conclutions.

Now, taking the Law of Conservation of Energy into account,
the amount of potential energy in a system does not change in quantity,
only in form.

according to my theory:
dark matter has an aether core
a shell of impetali
impetali changes to electrons and radiation
when unit of impetali has an electron shell, the impetali process is further stabalized

When a crystal of dark matter becomes highly reactive, we witness similar events
to nebula and/ or galaxy formation.

[Moontanman]

Belove, I think you should read the rules.

[belovelife]

YouTube - Time-Lapse Movie Of Crab Pulsar Wind

http://www.nasa.gov/mov/299642main_C...ple_sm_web.mov

YouTube - SN1987A Shock Wave

YouTube - Supernova 1987A

YouTube - Hubblecast 05: Hubble finds ring of...

[belovelife]

YouTube - NOVA scienceNOW | The Dark Matter...

[belovelife]

YouTube - Dark Matter 3D Map

[belovelife]

YouTube - Dark Matter vs Dark Energy - Leonard...

In this specific debate, I would assert that the "dark energy" described
would be my proposed description of aether. Thus allowing for higher concentrations
at the core of dark matter.

[belovelife]

Star On The Run: Speeding Star Observed With VLT Hints At Massive Black Hole

This could possibly support my theory in the respct that it would be an ignighted chunk of impetali moving at massive speeds enough to couteract the gravity in the object.
this would allow the "tail" that is seen in the picture.