Jump to content
Science Forums

Moronium

Members
  • Content Count

    2,840
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    32

Moronium last won the day on April 15 2019

Moronium had the most liked content!

3 Followers

About Moronium

  • Rank
    Creating

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Just for the record, this is from CERN: https://home.cern/science/physics/dark-matter Who would have guessed that "theories" involving "extra dimensons" and "parallel worlds," would have come out of this, eh? Not really a serious question--just rhetorical. Such "explanations" seem to be a routine part of physics these days. I have a theory, too. Ghosts are causing all of this. By definition they are invisible and can't be seen, so I will have to grant that I can only infer their presence from observable effects, but, still..... The article notes that "If one of these theories pro
  2. The scientific "reasoning" behind dark matter seems to go like this: 1. Our observations conflict with our current theory, raising the possibility that our theory is incorrect. 2. But we KNOW our theory is correct. 3. Therefore, dark matter must exist, even if it's theoretically unobservable. Same kinda deal with ptolemic epicycles, eh?
  3. What's the difference between falsifiable and verifiable in a case where your postulations are unobservable? You can't do either. A bell suddenly ringing without a known cause is "evidence for" the existence of ghosts. So what? How are you going to either verify or falsify the existence of ghosts? Popper also made it clear, as I understand him, that the "predictions" should precede the observations, not "postdict" them, ad hoc, to "explain" known observations. The retrograde motion of Mars is not "evidence for" the existence of the postulated circular epicyclical motion.of Mars. The
  4. Sure they are, Chem. But "science" generally deals with observable things, I thought. When you start making hypotheses which cannot be empirically verified, then you have moved into "pseudo-science," according to Popper, anyway. You can "explain" lots of things by positing invisible beings like ghosts, but that doesn't make your hypothesis "scientific."
  5. Well, Vic, the question isn't really whether they "work with the standard model," is it? The question is why are they posited in the first place, especially since they are "things" which cannot be observed. And the inability to directly observe dark matter seems to be "built into" the very concept. By definition, "dark matter" does not in any way interact with light or any other type of "standard" matter, so there is no way to "see" it. As for "dark energy," that's not even a "thing," is it? It's just a concept.
  6. Why is it "wrong?" How do I "fix" it? Your first two sentences seem to agree with what I said. So have your previous posts. You've already conceded, as I understood you, that it would take more force to accelerate the same object on Jupiter than it would on earth. In this very post you also say: "Yes, more force required for greater mass to accelerate to the same speeds as lesser mass." You have now switched from the question of "distance" to that of speed, but I don't see any difference. The higher the "speed" that is imparted, the greater the force required. The greater the speed,
  7. Now you're confusing me again. The issue wasn't whether the "actual acceleration," would be different. It was whether the mass would be different. The more force required to accelerate an object, the greater its "mass," right?
  8. Here's what you said, verbatim: As originally presented my conclusion was explicitly based on my understanding of F=MA (whether that equation is a valid one is not raised). Here you say it would take "more force" to LIFT an object. More force than what? I took you to mean more force than it would take to LIFT the identical object on earth. Did you mean something else? Once again I ask you if your understanding of F=MA differs from mine. If so, how?
  9. I certainly agree that the "fight" would be different for lateral as opposed to vertical motion. But I don't see how that means the "mass" would be different, from case.to case. Let me present the issue in a different way. Take a bowling ball which is just "resting" on the ground, it doesn't matter what planet you're on. That ball can be accelerated ("moved," lets say), right? How much "force" it would take to move it is a separate question, but I think most would agree that the more force applied, the more it would move. Now, take that same bowling ball and do this: Take a drill and
  10. Really? I have repeatedly said the opposite. Weight is not mass. You still have not explained anything. Basically just your usual haughty, sneering, response to someone who disagrees with you. Backed up by an authoritarian "vacation" threat, this time. Well, that's certainly one way to suppress and avoid questions, which you seem to greatly resent, eh, GAHD?
  11. Thanks for the definition of pedantic. That helps a lot. Here's another: Since when did asking a question become pedantry, I wonder? I've certainly heard the "not worth my time" response to questions before. It generally comes from someone who is unable to support their assertions.
  12. The question wasn't whether the mass would be unchanged. It was this: I still don't know what your trying to say, by way of explanation as opposed to rank assertion. I took it to be something like: "Neither would move at all, so, yes, they would move the "same" distance on each planet." Your original assertion was that the mass of a "spherical" object would not change, unless (perhaps) the force exerted was in direct opposition to the gravitational force (i.e, "lifted"). I still don't see why the shape is relevant either. Suppose the "sphere" was a beachball. Would that also "crus
  13. I haven't read the book, and, although it sounds quite interesting in certain respects, I don't really plan to. I did find a book review which I will paste a few excerpts from, however: http://kingkike.blogspot.com/2011/10/unobservable-universe-by-scott-m-tyson.html I certainly agree with, and approve of, the approach and the attitude set forth in the first two paragraphs quoted above. That is just as a general matter, though. With respect to his specific "resolution" of the "paradoxes" alleged, I can have no opinion. First of all, I'm not that conversant with QM. Secondly, I am s
  14. From your paper: I quoted this before, commenting that I couldn't see how "the force of gravity" (whether eventually eliminated or not) could be the behind a repulsive, as opposed to attractive, acceleration to begin with. You didn't address that. Do you see what I'm getting at?
  15. I said: Your response was: I look at inertia as being a phenomenon related to motion., not gravity, per se, so I'm not sure how this responds to the point, Mike.
×
×
  • Create New...