The God particle is a fabrication.

[Nabobalis]

Personally I think the Higgs will be purple.

 

[Shemjaza]

If Zaius isn't a Poe... it seems weird for a creationist to take name and image of a fictional character that is basically a straw-man of religious ignorance and hypocrisy.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If Zaius isn't a Poe... it seems weird for a creationist to take name and image of a fictional character that is basically a straw-man of religious ignorance and hypocrisy.

Maybe he just liked the film.

 

[artybloke]

Do you beat your spouse often?

No, she usually wins...



Ba dum cha...

 

[Doveaman]

Because gravity already means "whatever makes lumps of matter attract one another". It's meant that since Newton first suggested that what makes stuff fall down on earth is the same thing that makes planets go around the sun.

But it is not necessarily the same stuff that makes stars go around the galaxy. That's an assumption based on what we observe in our solar system, but it’s not necessarily the case in the galaxy. This assumption may be wrong regarding galaxy rotation, especially in light of the fact that there is not enough matter observed, or even detected, in the galaxy.

It's highly unlikely that that sense of gravity is going to be replaced.

This sense of gravity may not be replaced in our solar system, but it is not consistent with what we observe in the galaxy, and therefore an alternative cause may be necessary to consider.

You are only learning now that no set of evidence is ever definitive?

No -- but some internet scientists act as if it is.

 

[Doveaman]

When we observe stars in the universe we see that some stars at the edges of galaxies move too fast. Yet they are held in orbit around the center of these galaxies. So we infer that there must be more mass in the galaxies than we can see. The stars act as if they are following normal gravitational rules.

No they are not. Gravitational rules require matter. You do not detect any matter. That violates the gravitational rules. You are now trying to find matter so as to make sense of the rules.

You mean like finding a fossil on a mountain top and assuming it's because of a tremendous flood and not the upheaval of tectonic plates over millions of years?

I’ve been told by internet scientists that evidence can support a false idea even after the idea is shown to be false. So what’s your point?

It's not the evidence that supports a false idea. The evidence is what it is. It's the person that interprets the evidence.

That explains why scientists are often wrong and theories are falsified.

We know there's more matter out there than we can account for.

You do not know that. You assume that.

We don't know where it is or what form it takes.

All the more reason not to take you seriously.

Dark matter is one way we're hypothesizing it may be. Another is that gravity is a force that comes into this universe from another. Which is why it's so strong over such long distances yet so weak compared to other forces. That's the short version.

Your faith is obviously stronger than mine.

 

[sfs]

But it is not necessarily the same stuff that makes stars go around the galaxy. That's an assumption based on what we observe in our solar system, but it’s not necessarily the case in the galaxy. This assumption may be wrong regarding galaxy rotation, especially in light of the fact that there is not enough matter observed, or even detected, in the galaxy.

In that case we would be adding an additional force to gravity, unless gravity somehow stops working outside of the solar system -- and we'd probably still be calling the combination gravity.

No -- but some internet scientists act as if it is.

Who? Please be specific.

 

[roach]

[/COLOR]I’ve been told by internet scientists that evidence can support a false idea even after the idea is shown to be false. So what’s your point?
/QUOTE]

What the... what's an internet scientist?

 

[Aeneas]

What the... what's an internet scientist?

Its the term that Creationists use to try and ignore the fact that some people in this forum actually are scientists and know from personal experience that they have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[Zaius137]

To Frenchy Open your eyes….

“To somehow think the bible congruous with current knowledge or supports science, is, well, laughable. It is only when one opens their mind are they able to see reality for what it really is, and that any attempt to rectify biblical descriptions and our current understanding of science is fatuous.”

Your paradigm prevents you from seeing anything in nature clearly. Science actually supports the existence of God and God proclaims his word as truth. The valueless scientific ventures were all advanced by the poor foundation of materialism.


Rom 1:20-27
20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, (even) his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:
21 because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves:
25 for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

 

[Doveaman]

In that case we would be adding an additional force to gravity,

Sure -- but the additional force would be orders of magnitude stronger than gravity if it is to drive a galaxy.

unless gravity somehow stops working outside of the solar system --

It would still work, but its weak force would be insignificant when compared to the dominate additional force.

and we'd probably still be calling the combination gravity.

When we combine a glass of water with instant coffee it is no longer called a glass of water?

If the insignificantly weak force of gravity is combined with a dominant additional force, the combined name will most likely be that of the dominate force since the weak force of gravity is insignificant.

Who? Please be specific.

I am referring specifically to those who merely read a science paper and then come on the internet acting like scientists. This does not include you, of course.

 

[sfs]

Sure -- but the additional force would be orders of magnitude stronger than gravity if it is to drive a galaxy.

Why orders of magnitude? The amount of mass ascribed to dark matter in most galaxies is more like 50%. Any theory of a new force will of course also have to explain the consistency between galactic velocity curves and gravitational lensing results.

In the end, yes, if a new force stronger than gravity turns out to be involved, then it won't be called gravity. I'd put the odds of that happening as very small, however.

 

[Zaius137]

Relationship of Matter to star velocity at a radius:

m2 = (V^2) R /G​

​

“This says that for the tangential velocity, V, to remain constant as R increases - as it does in figure 1 (as we look at stars farther and farther out from the galaxy's center) the included mass, m2, must increase proportionally to that radius, R.”​

​

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/darkmatter.htm

As you can see the Mass must increase proportional to Radius to satisfy Newton. Mass can be observed at the outer edges of the galaxy to be orders of magnitude larger.

 

[chris4243]

I always keep God in my science, because I presume for God to tell me what I must do.

I consider that an admission on your part that you haven't ever done any science.

 

[Zaius137]

I was wrong in my last statement sorry….

“As you can see the Mass must increase proportional to Radius to satisfy Newton. Mass can be observed at the outer edges of the galaxy to be orders of magnitude larger.”

And the conclusions therein.

 

[Doveaman]

I consider that an admission on your part that you haven't ever done any science.

Every wise scientist follow this rule:

"Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths. (Prov 3:5-6).

It is not unscientific for scientists to pray for guidance in doing their experiments.

In fact, it should be a part of the scientific method.

 

[Nostromo]

Relationship of Matter to star velocity at a radius:

m2 = (V^2) R /G

“This says that for the tangential velocity, V, to remain constant as R increases - as it does in figure 1 (as we look at stars farther and farther out from the galaxy's center) the included mass, m2, must increase proportionally to that radius, R.”
​

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/darkmatter.htm

As you can see the Mass must increase proportional to Radius to satisfy Newton. Mass can be observed at the outer edges of the galaxy to be orders of magnitude larger.

You're ignoring the m1 term in F = Gm1m2/r^2

That term increases as you move away from the galactic centre, but you're treating it as constant.

 

[Doveaman]

Why orders of magnitude? The amount of mass ascribed to dark matter in most galaxies is more like 50%.

I was thinking about a known force which some scientists consider to be an alternative to dark matter and gravitational force: The ElectroMagnetic force.

Any theory of a new force will of course also have to explain the consistency between galactic velocity curves and gravitational lensing results.

If the new force is not gravity, chances are the ‘lensing’ is not gravitational either, but somehow related to the new force.

In the end, yes, if a new force stronger than gravity turns out to be involved, then it won't be called gravity. I'd put the odds of that happening as very small, however.

Actually, there are some scientists who do not call it gravity. They call it Electricity.

It is observed that ubiquitous EM fields are threaded throughout the cosmos and the universe is awash with EM radiation.

The EM force is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravitational force and can explain galactic velocity curves without the need for invisible, unknown matter.

IMO, it makes more sense to go in search of the known cause of EM force (electric currents) rather than searching for an unknown cause for gravitational force (dark matter).

Big Bang proponents claim that the universe is made up of 96% invisible, unknown matter. But it is known that the visible universe is made up of more than 99% ionized plasma.

To me, it is somewhat suspect that the amount of gravitational matter required to support the Big Bang model is about the same as the amount of ionized plasma observed in the universe which Big Bang proponents ignore.

Those scientists who's careers involve electrical engineering and plasma physics do not ignore it because their empirical experiments are consistent with what we observe in the cosmos.

Plasma and electricity is verified to exist right here on earth and can be experimented with. Dark matter and dark energy cannot.

 

[Zaius137]

From my simple understanding I believe that the m1 term was the mass of the individual star (that possessing the velocity) and m2 increased with radius because the radii enveloped more mass (stars). If that is the case m1 would be a relative constant…

 

[Nostromo]

From my simple understanding I believe that the m1 term was the mass of the individual star (that possessing the velocity) and m2 increased with radius because the radii enveloped more mass (stars). If that is the case m1 would be a relative constant…

Yes, sorry, on that page m1 is the mass of the star. You already retracted what you said in post 93 anyway, so there's not much for me to say.