Jump to content
Science Forums

Moronium

Members
  • Content Count

    2,840
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    32

Everything posted by Moronium

  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.
  16. Of course, but what does that have to do with "time?" And what does being "aware of" something that is exclusively in your frame tell you about "the universe" to begin with? But, no need to really even ask or answer that question. If one speeds up or slows down he WILL know it, contrary to your claim. Acceleration is absolute and can be "felt" by your senses and/or objectively measured by an accelerometer. And, for that matter, BOTH will know that their "relative velocity" has changed, again contrary to your claim. You're still accepting too much of SR's bullshit. But the main poin
  17. I agree that it's hopelessy vague, but those are your words, not mine, Chem. If you want something more specific, then maybe you can answer the questions I addressed to GAHD.
  18. It's really quite simple. Say A and B have relative motion between them at .6c. Now, if you want to posit that A is "at rest," then you have simply designated A as having the preferred frame as between the two. It is then A's frame where clocks and rods remain unaffected and where the speed of light is isotropic. It will then be B's (moving) frame where clocks slow down, etc. If you want to posit B as being "at rest," then it's the same thing in reverse. B's frame is now the preferred one. SR wants to simultaneously say that both are at rest, while both are also moving. Both are "e
  19. 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
  20. Yes, and like I just said: And, as I've said before, this is one reason that theorists like Popper and J.S. Bell has said that SR must be dumped in favor of theories positing absolute simultaneity, i.e. (the pre-unification) type of theories.
  21. . Here's a suggestion, not that you'll take it, Ralf. Ignore "perspective time." Forget about it. It's irrelevant to the physical questions involved. Only a ridiculous theory like SR would think otherwise. If you do that, what do you come up with?
  22. Maybe you can explain to me how "all of this works," then, eh, Chem?
  23. Yes to what? Would the mass and momentum of the semi also be "unchanged" if it was on Jupiter? Why would the semi be "crushed?' Because the boulder is spherical, that it? Is there any amount of force (say a two mile long train, packed to the gills with massive cargo, going 100 mph) which would not be "crushed" by the boulder? Would the same (1 ton) boulder on earth also "crush" the semi?
  24. 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: If dark energy is accepted as a "fundamental force," then it is not the "same fo
  25. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...