Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Cut The Bullshit In Physics


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
326 replies to this topic

#18 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 07:47 AM

I don't agree with the claim that they started calling dark matter dark energy.  They are two different, co-existing, conceptions.  

 

 

But, I might add, the two just amount to one ad hoc hypothesis added on top of another, all for the same purpose, i.e., to somehow "save" GR.  Then, to top off all the bullshit, they claim that when we observe two objects receding from each other at superluminal speeds, neither object is actually moving.  Instead, they claim, the space between them is expanding, while the objects remain motionless.

 

I see this as an absurd attempt to "save" the cherished postulate of special relativity, which claims that no material object can exceed the speed of light.

 

By clinging so steadfastly to their pre-existing notions, they just get deeper and deeper into the quicksand.  It's hard to take it seriously.


Edited by Moronium, 16 April 2019 - 11:53 PM.


#19 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1043 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 07:50 AM

http://blogs.discove...s/#.XLP9hzBKjX5

 

What is Dark Matter? Even the Best Theories Are Crumbling  By Korey Haynes | September 21, 2018 5:00 pm

 

Dark matter research is unsettling. Scientists were unnerved when they first noticed that galaxies don’t rotate by the same physics as a spinning plate. The stars at a galaxy’s edge rotate faster than expected. And their motion can only be explained by a lot of invisible matter that we can’t see.

 

And yet, after all these decades, any physicist who doesn't "believe in" dark matter is still considered to be a "rogue," know what I'm sayin?

 

 

Scientists were unnerved when they noticed that galaxies DO rotate by the same physics as a spinning plate! The outer stars and the inner stars rotate with the same angular velocity, just as a dinner plate does.

 

Christ! If these writers cannot even get the first "fact" they write down right, why should anyone read the rest?



#20 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 07:53 AM

Scientists were unnerved when they noticed that galaxies DO rotate by the same physics as a spinning plate! 

 

Not without inventing dark matter, Popeye.

 

[Dark matter's] presence is implied in a variety of astrophysical observations, including gravitational effects that cannot be explained by accepted theories of gravity unless more matter is present than can be seen....The primary evidence for dark matter is that calculations show that many galaxies would fly apart instead of rotating, or would not have formed or move as they do, if they did not contain a large amount of unseen matter.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia...iki/Dark_matter


Edited by Moronium, 16 April 2019 - 08:00 AM.


#21 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1043 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 07:57 AM

Not without inventing dark matter, Popeye.

 

 

What? Do you think someone had to invent dark matter in order to MAKE the galaxy rotate the way it is observed to be rotating?

 

They rotate the way a dinner plate does and nobody had to invent anything; that is what is observed!

 

The first sentence in the blog you quoted is wrong.


Edited by OceanBreeze, 16 April 2019 - 07:59 AM.


#22 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1043 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 08:01 AM

You totally miss the point every single time. I have given up on you as an annoying troll.



#23 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 08:10 AM

You totally miss the point every single time. I have given up on you as an annoying troll.

 

Well, that's unfortunate, Popeye.  I'm not trying to offend you, but I think your "annoyance" stems more from your own characteristics than my comments.

 

I think you often tend to oversimplify problems or questions, and then offer a simplistic "pat" answer to a question.  You then get extremely defensive, and feel "attacked," if your simple "answer" is questioned.

 

You did it with this article, too.  According to you, NOTHING the guy says can even be considered it if does comport with your initial understanding.  You immediately dismiss him as an idiot.

 

What he's saying is that a "spinning plate" would NOT spin as it does in distant galaxies, UNLESS dark matter is postulated.  Can't you see that?

 

Maybe you're the one "missing the point," eh?  But, even assuming that I am missing the point, how does that make me a "troll?"


Edited by Moronium, 16 April 2019 - 08:20 AM.


#24 MikeBrace

MikeBrace

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 08:42 AM

….there are no anomalies in the universe[.] how can there be anomalies in the frameworks for it, our frameworks and models are fundamentally flawed as depressing as that seems, there should be no anomalies in physics.

 

Moronium, I like where this is going; and Victor points out the right direction in his first post.

 

What I interpret him to say is that: If in 14 billion years we haven't seen the results of your theories prove out, or if you have to invent a hypothetical particle, equation or reaction that has no equal (or comparable) description in what we can observe, know and have proven today, and if your hypothesis relies on unprovable postulates or imaginary properties that cannot be substantiated, then let's toss them out.

 

Little Bang made the most profound statement I have read on this website to date. (It may have been made previously on other thread but this is the first time I've read it)

 

Little Bang, on 24 Feb 2018 - 11:20 AM, said:snapback.png

It would help if we could take gravity out of the equation because it may be a function of another property of the Universe?

 

And this was my reply:

 

[Little Bang] You've hit the nail squarely on the head.

 

And if we did take gravity out of the equation, would any of these responses in this thread make sense or be still be accurate? Would any of the other threads discussing the physics of the universe be valid then, or would they all be regulated to the long list of other historic, long-since disproven theories?

 

Lastly, (since we still have to explain gravitational force) if we can clearly explain it as a function of another known, proven property(s) of the universe, could we take it out without prejudice and re-write everything? Would you believe it?

 

Let's all answer these questions truthfully first before we start discussing your intuitively obvious solution to sooooo many of modern physics' problems.

 

Moronium, am I barking up the right tree?



#25 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 08:59 AM

Moronium, am I barking up the right tree?

 

Well, yeah, you are, at least in one sense. Like you, I agree with Vic when he says that if our theories result in contradictions, "anomalies," or otherwise provide incomplete and inadequate "explanations," then we should look to our theories as being the source of the problem, not the "physics" or "natural laws" of the universe.

 

I also agree that "gravity" is just an abstraction from our observations which has never been adequately explained.  Certainly Newton did not attempt to "explain" it, because he had no reasonable explanation, and said so. You often see references made to "Newton's theory of gravity," but that is a misnomer.  Again, he had no theory.  He produced a mathematical "law" that's all.  That is not a theory, it is just the discovery of some seemingly universal correlation.  What would happen if we just completely dispensed with the concept of "gravitation?"  I don't know.

 

I suspect you're headed toward an "electromagnetic" theory of everything, but I don't know.  I do know that such interpretations have been advocated by others, but I've never tried to study or understand those theories.


Edited by Moronium, 16 April 2019 - 09:05 AM.


#26 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 09:16 AM

Here's link to an "Electric Universe Theory" website.  Just reading the first page, I can see lot of historical and academic citations.  But, the first thing this site says is:

 

The Electric Universe theory argues that electricity plays a significant and more important role in the Universe, than is generally accepted (see also “Electricity throughout the Universe“). The theory does not dismiss gravity.

 

 

https://www.electric...niverse-theory/

 

So I guess you're talking about something else, Mike, if your theoretical approach does "dismiss gravity."


Edited by Moronium, 16 April 2019 - 09:16 AM.


#27 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 09:24 AM

And if we did take gravity out of the equation, would any of these responses in this thread make sense or be still be accurate? Would any of the other threads discussing the physics of the universe be valid then, or would they all be regulated to the long list of other historic, long-since disproven theories?

 

Lastly, (since we still have to explain gravitational force) if we can clearly explain it as a function of another known, proven property(s) of the universe, could we take it out without prejudice and re-write everything? Would you believe it?

 

 

Certainly very few physicists would "believe it" or accept it.  The concept of gravity "explains" too much for them to ever abandon it.  If for no other reason that the one I just offered, i.e., it is extremely difficult for people to even recognize and critique, let alone abandon, their ingrained preconceptions.  That difficulty increases exponentially when they think that "everything they know" is threatened.


Edited by Moronium, 16 April 2019 - 09:26 AM.


#28 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 10:51 AM

 Do you think someone had to invent dark matter in order to MAKE the galaxy rotate the way it is observed to be rotating?

 

They rotate the way a dinner plate does and nobody had to invent anything; that is what is observed!

 

The first sentence in the blog you quoted is wrong.

 

Certainly no theoretical invention can make the universe do anything.  Why was dark matter hypothesized, Popeye, if it is not needed to "explain" what we see, which defies all theoretical expectations?

 

I'll repeat this excerpt, which you did not quote and may well have missed since I added it later:

 

[Dark matter's] presence is implied in a variety of astrophysical observations, including gravitational effects that cannot be explained by accepted theories of gravity unless more matter is present than can be seen....The primary evidence for dark matter is that calculations show that many galaxies would fly apart instead of rotating, or would not have formed or move as they do, if they did not contain a large amount of unseen matter.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia...iki/Dark_matter

 

The question is not "what do we see?"  It is, "how the hell can we possibly explain what we see without throwing out our theory?"


Edited by Moronium, 16 April 2019 - 11:08 AM.


#29 MikeBrace

MikeBrace

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 10:53 AM

I didn't want to jump on this forum and rant and rave about some of the more absurd theories being batted about in this, as well as other threads. You and I have seen enough of that. We have also seen enough papers written on the subject to fill the Library of Congress (and then some). Like you, I have read far too many that loose me when the pages abruptly turn into equations with more Greek characters than Arabic ones. I'll profess I've long since forgotten what half of them mean. To which the minute I start sensing that the argument is trying to be vindicated through complex and abstract formulas the more I sense that they are probably being based on an informal fallacy that the author hasn't come to terms with (or even realized).

 

To which, I want to hit you with a link to a paper I published (several years back) leading up to the discussion that I started; the simplified theory of everything. It's an easy, if not thought provoking read (and occasionally entertaining) that even the most average physic's student in his senior year of high school can follow. But true to VictorMedvil's original request. cut the bullshit.

 

Before you jump in (and I hope you do!) I wanted to preface this paper with the notion that I did not intend to solve this problem when I wrote it, I intended to define Gravity only because to do that I needed to figure out a way for superluminal travel (which I eventually did as well). My theories about gravity and the ToE are just verifiable byproducts of those efforts. Sit down with a cold beer and give it a read. Then tell me where I might have unknowingly introduced an informal fallacy if you think I did. I value your opinion.

 

http://www.vixra.org...1511.0300v1.pdf



#30 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 11:19 AM

The outer stars and the inner stars rotate with the same angular velocity, just as a dinner plate does.

 

Christ! If these writers cannot even get the first "fact" they write down right, why should anyone read the rest?

 

You might be interested in perusing the points made at this site, Popeye:

 

Stars at the edges of a galaxy do not orbit at the same angular speed as inner stars do.

 

 

https://www.quora.co...r-all-the-stars

 

Then again, you may not be the least bit interested.



#31 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 11:59 AM

The author has spent the better part of the last 40 years studying gravity. Every essay, publication and widely accepted theory about gravity that I came across often involved a myriad of equations, postulates and suppositions to support the findings presented therein, but very few of them agreed with, or were in concert with each other. It was the author's observation that while everyone proved itself mathematically valid, very few of these essays and reports used the same equation or in the same context.

 

Because the resultant force of gravity is real, observable and measurable in 3-dimensional space it must be accounted for in both mathematical arguments as well as reality-based arguments in order to for those arguments to serve as a foundation for a theory of everything.

 

It is the definition, and cause of gravity that keeps gravity (and for the most part the other 2 fundamental forces of the universe) separated and non-compliant to any generally accepted and/or proven unified theory,...the net result is that science is not looking for a unifying theory, it is looking for a unifying set of equations hoping to find enough common unknowns to solve for X.

 

In 2005 the American Physical Society (APS) released an article discussing Albert Einstein and his search for a unified theory. [which said]:

 

"He [too] also became more and more absorbed in formal mathematical arguments, rather than following the physical intuition that had guided him in his youth to his great discoveries."

 

So far, I've only read up to about page 4, Mike, taking a few notes as I go.  So far I've found nothing that sounds implausible or that I disagree with.  On the contrary, what I've read so far is quite consistent with my general sympathies.


Edited by Moronium, 16 April 2019 - 12:00 PM.


#32 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 12:17 PM

I am far from being an expert in GR, QM, cosmology, or anything like it, Mike.  Still, from a layman's viewpoint I did recently suggest that physicists had, in effect, come to embrace a "fifth" fundamental force, to wit, "Dark Energy."  As I understand it, DE is basically just a cosmological constant similar to what Einstein originally invented (then retracted after Hubble's work was published).  It is essentially an "anti-gravity" force, as I understand it.  Based on that, I would question what you say here:

 

Or maybe the author (and the majority of other scientists) committed an informal fallacy by equating .the force of 'gravity' generated between two objects of mass to the same force of 'gravity' that is accelerating the mass of the universe apart.

 

 

If dark energy is accepted as a "fundamental force," then it is not the "same force" as gravity, although it may be similar in many other respects.  It is basically a force which opposes gravity.  It repels, rather than attracts) masses from each other.

 

That said, even the notion that the expansion of the universe is "accelerating" has been questioned on plausible grounds.

 

On another note, I would not conclude that "gravity" is the cause of the universe expanding, either, as you seem to.  I would attribute that to "inertia," not gravity.


Edited by Moronium, 16 April 2019 - 12:24 PM.


#33 MikeBrace

MikeBrace

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 01:46 PM

On another note, I would not conclude that "gravity" is the cause of the universe expanding, either, as you seem to.  I would attribute that to "inertia," not gravity.

 

At first it may seem that way, but read on. In the end I completely eliminate gravity.

 

For a slightly different point of view on my approach, read Dr Scott Tyson's book The Unobservable Universe. He and I came to very much the same conclusion, and conversations with him indicated that our theories on gravity were virtually identical except for one slight variation:

 

https://www.amazon.c...&sr=1-1-catcorr



#34 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 01:55 PM

At first it may seem that way, but read on. In the end I completely eliminate gravity.

 

Well, truth be told, I gave up on reading once it turned into a matter of analyzing all sorts of particle behavior, etc.  I'm certainly aware that many theories do not believe in a "void."  I've seen "quantum foam" theories discussed too.  It's all too speculative and incomprehensible to me at that point.

 

I will quote this guy again, as I have in other threads, for what it's worth, though:

 

More recently (in 2005), Robert B. Laughlin (Physics Nobel Laureate, Stanford University), wrote about the nature of space:

 

"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed . . . The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum.  . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. (i.e., as measured). It turns out that such matter exists....It is filled with ‘stuff’ that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia...ki/Twin_paradox


Edited by Moronium, 16 April 2019 - 10:40 PM.