Introducing "Dark Matter"

[neutralino7]

.

 

[Nabobalis]

lol... I wouldn't be surprised. My field is not astrophysics/cosmology, but I know about it as a physicist. I personally do not subscribe to astrophysics/cosmology, because the point of science is for a layman to be able to reproduce experiments in the lab for verification. We do not have a lab that is comparable to the cosmos. Moreover, the universe is constantly changing. So, I think by nature Astrophysics is presumptuous and speculative. This allows for countless mistakes and "backtracking."

But then wouldn't all astronomy, astro/solar physics have this issue?

 

[Doveaman]

FYI, I cited two specific examples earlier in this thread where "dark matter" (unidentified/missing mass) turned out to be ORDINARY STARS! IMO it is WAY too early to be claiming ANYTHING about the nature of "dark matter/missing mass". All we REALLY know is that we can't account for all of the mass in a given galaxy based on our current modeling techniques. The rest is pure speculation.

Why do you think scientists seem to have given up looking for normal matter and chose to speculate on a new type of matter? The specific examples you offered about missing stars don't even seem to be considered.

 

[Michael]

You mean how they had to invent a satellite first to test his results. Of course it was slow. Now experiments take around 10 to 15 years to go through planning and then launch. It is very slow and that won't change any time soon.

Unlike Chapman, Birkeland *ALREADY* figured out a physical way to TEST his ideas, by comparing his experiments in the lab to his measurements of the magnetic field alignments and strengths on the ground during solar storms. The mainstream ALWAYS ignores EMPIRICAL testing when it suits them in favor of mathematical mythologies like Chapman's ideas. The annoying thing is how much time they spend *IGNORING* empirical tests and empirical testing methods. For instance, every single high energy observation on the sun can and is explained by "empirical" testing of "electrical discharges" in the lab. Only one of those observations was ever achieved with "magnetic reconnection" in a lab, and even then it was simply a single ELECTRON, and the real source of energy was the CURRENT that sustained the whole experiment. Birkeland knew more about solar physics that most astronomers today.

With dark matter and dark energy, plasma cosmology doesn't work. The whole thing hinges on EM forces, which we know don't work on such large scales with any real strength. Only gravity can.

That's nothing more than your personal "dogma". You have no evidence that "gravity" is the most important force of nature in the universe, in fact "dark energy" is WAY more important in terms of the MOVEMENTS of the physical universe than "gravity". Ditto for the "inflation sky entity". Evidently gravity is a big wussy in mainstream theory.

Well there are most likely have to better ideas than an EU.

Why? What makes you believe that? What parts of EU theory have you even studied?

I'm sure it will shift but if we get a theory for quantum gravity I suspect it won't be towards EU.

IMO it's likely to work the other way around. It's likely that gravity will turn out to be nothing more than a quantum effect CAUSED BY the EM fields that permeate spacetime.

World Science Database

 

[neutralino7]

.

 

[Nabobalis]

They most definitely should, but they doesn't. In fact, none of the space sciences accept that responsibility. If they did, then many, many books would have to be rewritten.

The earth is too dynamic for scientific mastery right now. Why spread our scientific minds thin by trying to dabble in something we cant even test on our planet? It leads to confusion. Colliders like LHC and Fermilab are trying to create the conditions of the cosmos. We have satellites to detect (not reproduce) the effects of cosmological processes. But given the amount of assertions, books, classes and degrees handed out in astrophysics, stellar structure, cosmology, etc., we have jumped the gun.

But we will never be able to do experiments for many , if any cosmological processes. Other fields have that issue, like climate science or weather. We don't have the ability to reproduce them in a lab. We go to models and test them with observations, I don't see an issue with that.

 

[neutralino7]

.

 

[Nabobalis]

Well, we can recreate certain climatological processes in the lab, like vortices and cyclones via pressure systems, the water cycle, lightning and thunder. We do it quite often. We use the models to extrapolate the data.

But we have yet to create an actual climate to test the various climate hypotheses so doesn't that field have this issue as well?

 

[neutralino7]

.

 

[juvenissun]

Most elementary particles are some form of quasi-energy. The electron, for example, exists as waves, and wave bundles that give it particle-like qualities. In general, the electron is just energy, and probabilistic energy at that. Because many elementary particles move close to the speed of light, there is no concrete "shape" to them; the "point" is used for convention, and to make the math prettier.

Thank you. What a strange world.

 

[juvenissun]

Why do you think scientists seem to have given up looking for normal matter and chose to speculate on a new type of matter? The specific examples you offered about missing stars don't even seem to be considered.

Yes, I asked why not a bunch of stellar size black holes earlier? No comment on that either.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, we can recreate certain climatological processes in the lab, like vortices and cyclones via pressure systems, the water cycle, lightning and thunder. We do it quite often. We use the models to extrapolate the data.

The negligence in science comes when we assume we should assert something when we do not even follow our own philosophies i.e. reproduction in a lab. And, it isn't just supposed to be reproducible, it is supposed to be descriptive and thorough enough so that a layperson can follow the exact same steps the scientist did, and come up with the same results. That is responsible science. When we push theory as accepted thought-form, we damage the future of thoughtful and meticulous science, as it were.

Having a lot of "respected" figures assert theories is, and should be, nothing more than philosophy. When you can reproduce things in a laboratory setting, then it can qualify as science. Otherwise, it is philosophy. We barely get science right concerning our own earth.

Don't be so fast. We haven't. We can not put the earth in a lab yet. According to you, geology is not science either. Well, that is what I told my intro class anyway.

 

[neutralino7]

.

 

[juvenissun]

But what you are talking about would be called terranology, not geology. Geology studies the systems, processes and dynamics within the earth, not the earth as a single entity like one would study the sun. I have never said geology is not a science; on the contrary, geology is one of the more concrete sciences, as the earth has natural laboratories to reproduce and test experiments. And, we haven't mastered geology.

But, when I say we haven't mastered the science concerning our own earth, I am talking about everything from unique composition of inorganic and organic matter, to the intricacies of photons, quarts, neutron, and other elementary particles on our earth. We are infants in terms of knowledge of how these things contribute to and influence the planet in which we live. So, to assert anything as concrete is, in my opinion, irresponsible. But, at least make a way to reproduce and test the hypothesis.

Anyway, as a geologist, I don't really think geology is a science.

Go on, talk about neutrinos and the back stuff. I like to hear more about it.

How about the stellar-size black holes? Do we know for sure that they are not a candidate for the dark matter?

 

[Elendur]

Anyway, as a geologist, I don't really think geology is a science.

Go on, talk about neutrinos and the back stuff. I like to hear more about it.

How about the stellar-size black holes? Do we know for sure that they are not a candidate for the dark matter?

Geology is science per definition. You should know that as you claim to have a PhD in that area (if I haven't misunderstood that).

 

[neutralino7]

.

 

[Michael]

But we will never be able to do experiments for many , if any cosmological processes.

I'm always fascinated when an atheist in particular can be comfortable with the idea that cosmological processes will forever be an act of faith on the part of the believer. Typically all the while they tend to lack belief in God based on empirical arguments. Fascinating.

 

[juvenissun]

Geology is science per definition. You should know that as you claim to have a PhD in that area (if I haven't misunderstood that).

Don't make distraction here. I will talk to you on this some other places.

 

[juvenissun]

I will go in more detail later (gotta run.) In response to stellar sized black holes, no we dont know for sure if they arent dark matter. It seems straight forward that they could be. I know that scientists have it wrong when they say the extreme gravity of black holes causes light to collapse into them. Since light is massless, gravity fields do not affect it. What causes the collapse into the black holes is immense MAGNETISM. One of the final stages of a star goes through before becoming a black hole is all of the electrons collapse upon the protons, creating a ball of neutrons. Hence, the neutron star. This neutron star has magnetism that is so immense it could, and does, distort light.

But, since the criteria for dark matter stipulates that it does not interact with EM radiation, charge, or other "light" matter, it is likely stellar sized holes would be considered dark matter. Perhaps the definition of dark matter should be amended. It's such a circus, because we have yet to understand the intricacies of gravity, yet we are claiming understanding of something unseen. To me, the Occam's Razor approach would be to start with singularities, both infinitesimal and stellar sized.

I personally lean toward the idea that dark matter is interdimensional in nature, and it is the mass contained in adjacent dimensions (which is why its presence can be observed, but it doesnt interact with forces on this "side" of the dimensional door.)

I will be back to talk about neutrinos. I really like them... they are their own anti-particle.

This is interesting. Is this hinted by the "leak" of gravity? Then the interaction between or among dimensions would be a potential issue of discussion. Right?

 

[juvenissun]

I will go in more detail later (gotta run.) In response to stellar sized black holes, no we dont know for sure if they arent dark matter. It seems straight forward that they could be. I know that scientists have it wrong when they say the extreme gravity of black holes causes light to collapse into them. Since light is massless, gravity fields do not affect it. What causes the collapse into the black holes is immense MAGNETISM. One of the final stages of a star goes through before becoming a black hole is all of the electrons collapse upon the protons, creating a ball of neutrons. Hence, the neutron star. This neutron star has magnetism that is so immense it could, and does, distort light.

But, since the criteria for dark matter stipulates that it does not interact with EM radiation, charge, or other "light" matter, it is likely stellar sized holes would be considered dark matter. Perhaps the definition of dark matter should be amended. It's such a circus, because we have yet to understand the intricacies of gravity, yet we are claiming understanding of something unseen. To me, the Occam's Razor approach would be to start with singularities, both infinitesimal and stellar sized.

I personally lean toward the idea that dark matter is interdimensional in nature, and it is the mass contained in adjacent dimensions (which is why its presence can be observed, but it doesnt interact with forces on this "side" of the dimensional door.)

I will be back to talk about neutrinos. I really like them... they are their own anti-particle.

So say more about it.

Does the scenario set in the movie 2012 about neutrinos even make sense? It suggested that too many neutrinos from the sun heated up the core of the earth. See, the core of the earth is made of material much denser than Pb (13 to 18 versus 11), and the size of the core is about 6000 km in diameter.