Having hard time finding Dark matter

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by timojin, Mar 25, 2017.

  1. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Totally agree with this approach.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. karenmansker HSIRI Registered Senior Member

    Agree, Martillo . . . . "In time, the truth will out . . . ."
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. The God Valued Senior Member

    Establishment power to enforce!

    What varies is degree of compliance or action against those who oppose or criticize.

    Take for example if you criticize the so called mainstream philosophy of North Korean or Syrian regime then you are dead. In some other country you are imprisoned... In US life is not so bad even after you call Trump some goody goody names (Try that with Assad or Kim).

    Same thing applies to science establishment, with a degree variance. If a working insider criticizes his funding is blocked, his promotion will be blocked. If some outsider or fringer opposes then he will be termed as crackpot or pseudoscientist or what not.

    So changing something which is favored by establishment requires more than logical argument and better evidence. Some powerful outsider can only do that. None in sight so far.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    What an unpalatable soup of

    social issues

    science issues

    conspiracy issues

    Deserves to be tipped down the sink

    Making 3 soups a better approach

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  8. karenmansker HSIRI Registered Senior Member

    The God . . . . . -dittos!-
  9. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    On the largest scales, and before Dark Energy was devised to deal with the accelerated expansion, gravity used to be the only player worth considering.

    I can't quite decide whether you are better at asking cosmology questions, or whether it is because paddoboy has left and is no longer around to derail any discussion of cosmology that is even a tiny bit off of what he and brucep had already decided was "mainstream" cosmology.

    You already know how much I care for things like Guth's FTL inflation. My expectation is that for an eternity before the Big Bang, things were pretty much the same as for the eternity that followed. I'm not saying there wasn't a collision or a cataclysmic event of some kind, only that extraordinary claims to the contrary require extraordinary evidence to back it up. The CMBR studies paddo and brucep always cited were what I would characterise as weak or not compelling.

    Neither DM nor DE have that extraordinary evidence, as far as I can see, and until or unless they get them, they are only observations. Something is accelerating the universe at large. Something stronger than GR defined gravitation is holding spiral galaxies together.
    Last edited: May 4, 2017
  10. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Even if that were true, is it something we should fear? I fear ALL kinds of ignorance, and the fear is justified.
  11. The God Valued Senior Member

    Fear what?
    It's a statement that establishment in any field whether governance or science, is powerful and certain level of intolerance is there. It is very difficult to course correct if the top guys are invested.
    danshawen likes this.
  12. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    For some reason I finished up back here

    And being bored spent some time re reading

    To the point

    I am very unclear what you mean by pure energy condition because


    In physics, energy is the property that must be transferred to an object in order to perform work on – or to heat – the object, and can be converted in form, but not created or destroyed.[note 1] The SI unit of energy is the joule, which is the energy transferred to an object by the mechanical work of moving it a distance of 1 metre against a force of 1 newton.



    • : ability to be active : the physical or mental strenth that allows you to do things
    • : natural enthusiasm and effort
    • : usable power that comes from heat, electricity, etc.

    So ENERGY is not a SOMETHING

    it is a ABILITY

    So you are postulating a

    pure ability condition?

    Sounds like your idea equates to

    In the beginning was a

    pure inches condition

    Some inches became rulers (matter) and

    the remaining inches are out there somewhere

    I still prefer my number 1

    Outside of these threads I have read up and it seems like the best minds seem to dislike NOTHING prefering

    ' NOTHING is inherently unstable and matter flashes in and out of existence until enough matter flashed at the same time to create the Universe '

    The above is paraphrased into my words as to its meaning

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    danshawen likes this.
  13. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Just to add - don't forget that science is dogma and new ideas and new knowledge are crushed by the Free Masons working in conjunction with the Trilateral Commission!
  14. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Ignorance of the idea that power corrupts is just one bad thing out of billions upon billions of other poor, ignorant, bad value choices.
  15. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    By far the most important aspect of energy is that it is CONSERVED. This is commemorated in phyics by E=mc^2. All Einstein needed in order to derive it was A SINGLE PHOTON emitted at one end of a long spaceship, and absorbed at the other. Center of mass physics calculations right out of Isaac Newton's playbook and his new theory of Special Relativity did all of the heavy lifting.

    Translation: A LOT of ENERGY can be converted or stored in TINY amounts of matter , and also A TINY amount of matter can be converted into a large amount of ENERGY.

    Best example of the former: photon-photon creation of a particle of matter.

    Best example of the latter: annhilation of an electron-positron pair (decay of an atom of positronium). You get a pair of gamma rays (photons) travelling in opposite directions, AND NO OTHER PARTICLES.

    When you combine the latter with the fact that every particle in the Standard Model has a corresponding anti-particle, you get an imagined future that resembles the starship Enterprise featured in the Canadian Star Trek science fiction television series.

    So that if your science were really up to, say 24th century science knowledge/standards, one of the first things you ought to be able to do is to FABRICATE, FROM SCRATCH, ANY PARTICLE OF THE STANDARD MODEL FROM THE SAME WHOLE CLOTH IT DISAPPEARS INTO WHEN COMBINED WITH ANTIMATTER. It makes the engines of the Enterprise possible, even if they can't achieve speeds >c, and it also makes their transporter system possible. Whether either of those systems could be made a practical reality may be debatable, but the processes of E--> m and m--> E are known to be possible, and that's really the point. The particular form of energy doesn't really matter either, so long as it is conserved.

    And if you can't do that because you are too engaged in your discrete math / group theory scribbles and lookng for more symmetries and conservation laws with Noether's theorems, well, I don't know what that is, but unraveling the science knowledge of the universe apparently is going to require a bit more originality in your current lines of thinking. Einstein started with Newton. What else have you got?

    I've conversed elswhere with particle physicists who swore: "That's not what E=mc^2 means". These are people who make practical use of instrumentation that uses that relation every single day of their professional careers. Are they too busy to notice, or is their whole professional careers just one big lie? It's like YECs are choosing careers as paleontologists, or for that matter, a geneticist. Or an anti-vaxer running a vaccination clinic.

    If instead of Star Trek, you prefer to take the route of the late Prof. Irwin Corey, the world's foremost expert, what you get is a lot of trying to "baffle them with bs", instead of "dazzling them with your brilliance". And instead of the Star Trek future, science degenerates into arguments about what energy is, each Irwn Corey wanna-be trying to top the next. We seem to have a surplus of that around, especially since string theory and supersymmetry seems to be folding as a means of earning a living by papering floor to ceilings of science establishments with so much hoarded rubbish. Scientific theories that don't pass muster are supposed to be disposed of, not recycled. Killing more trees for pseudoscience is a bad idea.

    And, YES, the Big Bang would violate the conservation of energy. Unless it was the result of a collision with something else. A collision of two hypermassive black holes at near enough the speed of light might just do it. Of course, one of these string theory experts will say (and it's already been said) that the collision took place in another multiverse.
    Last edited: May 4, 2017
  16. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Multiverses would violate the conservation of energy as well, besides which, they have never been observed, and are not observable. Kind of puts a stop to the scientific method before it even gets started.

    Math, on the other hand, is a symbolic tool and a language for finite minds. It deals with infinity by not dealing with it, and in that respect, I suppose it could be made into a sort of pop religion. It cannot create universes that are not there. That would be fiction with supporting math. I've no clue as to why someone would even lend an ear to that idea.

    At least, the Big Bang had the courtesy to leave some clues to do forensics with.
    Last edited: May 4, 2017
  17. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    I am glad that is

    one of the first things you ought to be able to do

    and not something complicated

    Sounds somewhat like the proposal to power a spaceship with atomic explosions at the tail end of the ship behind a massive shield and riding the shock wave

    If you want the engines inside the ship for Scotty to give it all he can you would need material which can withstand all he can give

    While I look at matter as compressed energy I do not mean you get a

    bunch of /

    a number of /

    a lump of

    energy and compress it down until it becomes matter

    More like from tiny particles

    bunch them together against their

    reluctance to be close to each other until

    they do lock together but are constantly

    rejecting each other and

    trying to pull apart from each other

    Imagine two sumo wrestlers with their mawashi tangled together trying to pull apart from each other

    Lot of energy released when they do

    Two massive Black Holes colliding together might do it

    begging the question

    where did the black holes come from?

    I'll definitely stick to Science working it out rather than the rabbit hole of god

    Just wish the Maths of science was not so complicated

    There's an idea for a app

    You can write your formula in plain English and the app converts into the appropriate mathematical symbols

    Hope that catches the eye of a app developer

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  18. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    They really can't help math being so complicated, but however complicated it becomes, it still is subject to the limitations defined by Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

    For one thing, that means division by zero for your proportional maths never works. Pure mathematics does have a basis for development to continue, but unfortunately, bindings to any semblance of reality get more tenuous the deeper you go in that direction.

    You can't "make" reality with that particular tool, any more than you could easily make either a screw or a screwdriver using only a hammer as a tool. It's a better tool for some types of applications, than others.

    That ALSO means, that if you replace the infinities that involve the variable "time" and replace it everywhere you can with probabilities in quantum mechanics, then it's a fact you have explicitly eliminated the one variable that can tell you anything at all you might need to know about inertia, and also some of what you need to know about forces as well. Reducing time to an instant robs matter of momentum (inertia), and all of the mathematics you might try to do after that operation will not yield even one the kinds of ideas that relativity is based on.

Share This Page