Jump to content
Science Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Moronium

  1. Just for the record, this is from CERN:


    Dark matter--Invisible dark matter makes up most of the universe – but we can only detect it from its gravitational effects


    Galaxies in our universe seem to be achieving an impossible feat. They are rotating with such speed that the gravity generated by their observable matter could not possibly hold them together...They think something we have yet to detect directly is giving these galaxies extra mass, generating the extra gravity they need to stay intact. This strange and unknown matter was called “dark matter” since it is not visible.


    Unlike normal matter, dark matter does not interact with the electromagnetic force. This means it does not absorb, reflect or emit light, making it extremely hard to spot. In fact, researchers have been able to infer the existence of dark matter only from the gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter...


    Dark matter candidates arise frequently in theories that suggest physics beyond the Standard Model, such as supersymmetry and extra dimensions.  One theory suggests the existence of a “Hidden Valley”, a parallel world made of dark matter having very little in common with matter we know. If one of these theories proved to be true, it could help scientists gain a better understanding of the composition of our universe and, in particular, how galaxies hold together.





    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 proved to be true..."  I figure my theory has just as much chance of being "proved to be true," as the others, ya know?  Where's my Nobel Prize?

  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. Nope. Popper says a theory, to be scientific, must be capable of making testable predictions such that it is falsifiable. Not verifiable. 


     With dark matter there are already two independent classes of observation that provide evidence for its existence. 


    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 observed motion came first, followed by an ad hoc "explanation."

  4. They are hypotheses put forward to account for observations. Just as, ooh, say, molecules are. That is how science works. 


    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 I think the concepts of dark energy and Dark matter in the standard model work...


    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. No, no difference in mass. Yes, more force required for greater mass to accelerate to the same speeds as lesser mass.


    "the same amount of force would not accelerate you as much on Jupiter as it would on earth." is wrong. That is where you are failing. Reconsider this part, fix your failure, and you will gain insight.



    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, the farther it will go before stopping, when subjected to identical "counter forces."


    Am I supposed to "fix" my putative error by equating "actual acceleration" with "mass," it that it?

  7. There would be identical accelerations by force applied. 


    Lifting would be against the (arbitrary based on depth into gravity well) acceleration frame and thus also require (arbitrary) more force for the same meter stick of physical lift but be identical in actual acceleration. 


    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:


    No, it would take more force to LIFT you on a hypothetical surface beneath the clouds of Jupiter, but MOVING you (assume you were in spherical form) would take the same force. I think this kinda bad analogy might be one that helps show you the sources of your confusions.


    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?


    As I understand F=MA, the greater the force required to move an object, the greater it's inherent resistance to acceleration (i.e mass).  Is your understanding different?


  9. t. On jupiter the acceleration would be the same, it just has to "fight" different acceleration from gravity for vertical travel.


    Yes, you are being warned for being a troll.


    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 insert into one of the "finger sockets."  Then drill a hole completely through the ball.  Now, put the ball back on the ground and take a 20' peice of 3" rebar and insert it into hole.  Now pound that rebar completely down into the planet.


    My sense is that it would now take more force to move the ball than it did before.  Which is another way to say that it's resistance to lateral acceleration has increased.  In that sense, it's "mass" has increased, since mass is ultimately just a measure of "resistance to acceleration."


    Why would it be "harder to move?"  Because now it is more firmly "rooted" to the planet.  


    Now replace the "rebar" with the downward pull of the planet exerted by gravity.  The stronger that is, the more force it will take to move the ball, whether vertically or laterally.  In a black hole, for example, it would probably be impossible to move the ball at all, because it would be held so "tightly" in place by the gravitational force.


    So the question is not it's "weight." even though that is also a function of the gravitational force being applied to an an object.  It is a question of the effect of the gravitational force on the ability of other "forces" to move the ball.  As I understand F=MA, the greater the force required to move an object, the greater it's inherent resistance to acceleration (i.e mass).


    Is your understanding different?

  10. Further, your understanding of F=MA quoted in this same post from a previous post was wrong because you're confusing MASS (intrinsic property of matter, inertia, etc) with WEIGHT (mass in an acceleration frame). This is why I said this kind of understanding shows the roots of your confusion.



    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.  pedantic digression from core concept that is not worth my time.



    Thanks for the definition of pedantic.  That helps a lot.  Here's another:


    Pedantic means "like a pedant," someone who's too concerned with literal accuracy or formality. It's a negative term that implies someone is showing off book learning or trivia, especially in a tiresome way. You don't want to go antique-shopping with a pedantic friend, who will use the opportunity to bore you with his in-depth knowledge of Chinese porcelain kitty-litter boxes.



    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. To you question: yes. The mass would be unchanged, yes. 


    The question wasn't whether the mass would be unchanged.  It was this:


    Let's say you have a spherical boulder which "weighs" one ton on the earth's surface but weighs 4 tons on the surface of another planet.  Now we run a loaded semi carrying 40 tons of cargo and going 100 mph into each of them.  Are you saying they will move the same amount of lateral (not vertical) distance on each planet?



    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 "crush" the semi, or would the beachball "move" when struck?  Again, apart from asserting a conclusion, supported by "blah, blah," I can't see where you've given any reason for your claims.

  13. For a slightly different point of view on my approach, read Dr Scott Tyson's book The Unobservable Universe. 


    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:


    Scott Tyson embarks on a scientific quest for truth that covers three thousand years and the entire range of theoretical approaches to cosmology. Along the way, the author provides evidence that many of the conventional theories of the universe are not in accordance with the observations and facts that have presented themselves to scientists...


    [He] takes the startling position that resources have become focused on demonstrating the narrow conventional cosmological perspective. For the author, this devotion and faith in flawed and incomplete models of the universe, forms a religion based solely on belief. Scott Tyson points out that the current model of the universe is riddled with many paradoxes, demonstrating that the conventional paradigm is deeply flawed and incomplete. For the author, paradoxes can't exist in the universe, and only exist in the minds of people. This failure of perception, as the author describes it, leads to a clinging to improbable, if not impossible theories of cosmology....


    The author effectively deconstructs the current theories, that are untenable in his view, due to their many paradoxes and contradictions. In place of the existing theory of the universe, the author presents a compelling case for a new model, free from paradoxes, based on quantum physics.





    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 skeptical about virtually any broad cosmological theory.  It seems to me that in order to "prove" anything about this subject, one first has to make a lot of assumptions that may or may not be warranted.  At bottom, I just view it all as too speculative, I suppose.

  14. From your paper:


    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.


    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:


    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



    Your response was:


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


    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. If one participant changes the relative velocity, he will age slower at the doppler shift ratio rate for the duration of the imbalance. 



    Of course, but what does that have to do with "time?" 


    Neither participant will be aware of this slower rate within their own frames.



    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 point remains the same: It doesn't matter what they think or know.  The universe doesn't care.  It doesn't change in the least based on that kind of irrelevant crap.

  17. 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 "equally valid"  while each is also preferred. Clock retardation is allegedly "reciprocal."


    This is both logically and physically impossible.  In an attempt to make the impossible somehow seem possible, SR brings in the notion of what you call "perspective" time (relative simultaneity).  It's completely bogus.  Ignore it. It generates never-ending contradictions and will therefore keep you confused until your dying day if you accept it, and try to justify it.

  18. 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."





  19. Quantum Entanglement has been observed by everyone pretty much and it allows the at a velocity faster transmission of data between entangled states. 


    Yes, and like I just said:


    ...the mysterious quantum entanglement is one reason that many have said that the premises of SR must be abandoned if GR is to be reconciled with QM.



    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.

  20. .

     I have to come up with a universal formula for causal time using light signals and then a secondary formula that derives perspective time from the first. This may take some time. So I think you instinctively smelled something was not as simple as I was claiming.


    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?

  21. Yes.

    The mass is unchanged. The same semi would be crushed under the boulder on jupiter, but would shove it just as hard as anywhere else if it was a ramming thing. Bar friction, blah blah the kinetic transfer is the same. 


    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?

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  • Create New...