Jump to content
Science Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Moronium

  1. You might be interested in perusing the points made at this site, Popeye: https://www.quora.com/Do-stars-at-the-edge-of-the-galaxy-orbit-at-the-same-angular-speed-as-the-inner-stars-do-Does-the-galaxy-rotate-like-a-solid-plate-if-the-orbital-angular-speeds-are-the-same-for-all-the-stars Then again, you may not be the least bit interested.
  2. 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: 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?"
  3. 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.
  4. 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: https://www.electricuniverse.info/electric-universe-theory/ So I guess you're talking about something else, Mike, if your theoretical approach does "dismiss gravity."
  5. 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 t
  6. Since you have taken it upon yourself to assess my motives, etc., here again, Popeye, as you just did in another thread, I will repeat the comment I made there: 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 th
  7. 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
  8. Not without inventing dark matter, Popeye. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
  9. 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 p
  10. Sure, that's what I figured. That's why I suggested that you "misconstrued" the distinction between formal and informal fallacies. I didn't think that you just "made it up." Ultimately, the distinction is not really that important. Logical fallacy is fallacy, however you categorize it. The more important thing to recognize, I think, is that "logical validity," in and of itself, says nothing about "truth." Same with math, which is really just a form of "applied logic," the way I see it. Too many people seem to think that if their logic (or math) cannot legitimately be challenged, then
  11. All that is way too abstract, vague, and speculative for my tastes, Vic. But 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. Entanglement suggests that information can travel much faster than light. At an infinite speed (instantaneously) in fact.
  12. Well, this is what I've directed many of my last posts to. In my view matter is NOT mass, per se. There may be a correlation between the two, but they are not the same thing. It may be true, for example, that the hotter it gets, the more you sweat. But heat is not sweat, know what I'm sayin? Theoretically, it might be possible to develop a scale from which you could derive the temperature by measuring the amount of a person's sweat. But that still wouldn't make sweat = heat. They would still be two different things. As I said before:
  13. Hazel, you put the word "yes" in the form of a question, but I'm not sure what the question is. In what sense are we "back to matter?"
  14. Right, AG, and that's exactly why they come up with such a ridiculous proposition to begin with--there will always be an inevitable solution that way. Same motivation for inventing the concepts of dark matter and dark energy, really. GR seems to have "gone wrong" somewhere. But it CAN'T be wrong, because we believe in it. It's reminiscent of the ad hoc "epicycles" invented by Ptolemic astronomers to "save the appearances" and their theory at the same time.
  15. You may be right, but I can't see why. Of course few things are "spherical in form" to begin with, so that would be the exception, not the rule. 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? As is obvious from the post of mine which you quoted, that would not be my understanding of F=MA: I said:
  16. He probably meant to say dark energy instead of dark matter, I figure. He also said: I don't agree with the claim that they started calling dark matter dark energy. They are two different, co-existing, conceptions. But Mike does at least recognize the difference, and I don't think he is trying to say what you have imputed to him, Chem.
  17. Exactly? Well, this may just be a matter of semantics, Vic. Just looking at electromagnetism, wiki says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism I've really just been talking in terms of Newton's laws of motion/mechanics, as you know. F=MA and all that.
  18. Well, Vic, they say there are four "fundamental forces." How many of those operate in a "field," ya figure? Does that mean they're not forces?
  19. Here's a more modern summary of the various "properties" of matter, along with a definition of matter: https://www.reference.com/web?q=the+quantity+of+matter+is+called&qo=contentPageRelatedSearch&o=600605&l=dir Once again a distinction is made between "matter" and it's properties. It does not say, for example, that "matter is mass." If you want to somehow quantify matter, you can use "weight" as a means of doing that. But, even so, the question of "how much" matter (or mass) there is and the question of "what is mass?" are different questions. So, in that sense, I sup
  20. I can elaborate on that a little more, if you're interested, Hazel. Otherwise I won't bother.
  21. Because it's closely related to the role of math in physics, which I've been bringing up in this thread, I'll cut and paste a post I made in that thread here, too: http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/35719-the-concept-of-mass/page-10
  22. I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but I think I would understand the fundamentals of your argument. In another thread, [here: http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/35719-the-concept-of-mass/ ] I have been arguing, for example, that "mass" (inertia) might be better understood as an independent "force" as opposed to a mere "property of matter" which resists acceleration. In that view, mass would merely be a part of the net (resultant) force involved in the moon's orbit around the earth for example. So would gravity, as you seem to be saying.
  23. You meant to say "I meant it is weight that is involved with mass [not weight]," I think. Weight and matter have a relationship, as do matter and mass. But sometimes they get confused. A kilogram (as Popeye's citation referred to) is a measure of weight, not mass. As Popeye noted, gravitation mass is calculated differently than inertial mass (resistance to acceleration). But the two are basically equivalent. Until relatively recently (before Galileo) it was thought that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. The reasoning went like this: If the "same" force (i.e. gravity) is
  24. 1. I agree with virtually everything you said there, Mike. 2. For now, I'm not addressing your assertion that gravity is a resultant force, not a fundamental force. 3. One slight correction: I think you have misconstrued the difference between formal and informal logical fallacies. You appear to be addressing the soundness of a premise rather than a defect in form. A logical argument can be perfectly correct, formally, but still be false. For example: 1. All pigs are green 2. This animal is a pig 3. Therefore, this animal is green. Formally, this logic here is impeccable. If the
  25. It would take more "force" to accelerate you on Jupiter. Or, looked at another way, the same amount of force would not accelerate you as much on Jupiter as it would on earth. According the the F=MA equation, anyway. It basically says that mass is "resistance to acceleration," also known as "inertia." Conceptually, mass is not the same thing as "weight," which is strictly a function of gravitational forces. Mass is a broader concept than that, and it differs from matter.
  • Create New...