Maybe he just liked the film.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.
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.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.
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.It's highly unlikely that that sense of gravity is going to be replaced.
No -- but some internet scientists act as if it is.You are only learning now that no set of evidence is ever definitive?
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.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.
Ive been told by internet scientists that evidence can support a false idea even after the idea is shown to be false. So whats your point?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?
That explains why scientists are often wrong and theories are falsified.It's not the evidence that supports a false idea. The evidence is what it is. It's the person that interprets the evidence.
You do not know that. You assume that.We know there's more matter out there than we can account for.
All the more reason not to take you seriously.We don't know where it is or what form it takes.
Your faith is obviously stronger than mine.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.
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.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 its 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.
Who? Please be specific.No -- but some internet scientists act as if it is.
[/COLOR]Ive been told by internet scientists that evidence can support a false idea even after the idea is shown to be false. So whats your point?
/QUOTE]
What the... what's an internet scientist?
What the... what's an internet scientist?
Sure -- but the additional force would be orders of magnitude stronger than gravity if it is to drive a galaxy.In that case we would be adding an additional force to gravity,
It would still work, but its weak force would be insignificant when compared to the dominate additional force.unless gravity somehow stops working outside of the solar system --
When we combine a glass of water with instant coffee it is no longer called a glass of water?and we'd probably still be calling the combination gravity.
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.Who? Please be specific.
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.Sure -- but the additional force would be orders of magnitude stronger than gravity if it is to drive a galaxy.
I always keep God in my science, because I presume for God to tell me what I must do.
Every wise scientist follow this rule:I consider that an admission on your part that you haven't ever done any science.
You're ignoring the m1 term in F = Gm1m2/r^2Relationship of Matter to star velocity at a radius:
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/darkmatter.htmm2 = (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.
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.
I was thinking about a known force which some scientists consider to be an alternative to dark matter and gravitational force: The ElectroMagnetic force.Why orders of magnitude? The amount of mass ascribed to dark matter in most galaxies is more like 50%.
If the new force is not gravity, chances are the ‘lensing’ is not gravitational either, but somehow related to the new force.Any theory of a new force will of course also have to explain the consistency between galactic velocity curves and gravitational lensing results.
Actually, there are some scientists who do not call it gravity. They call it Electricity.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.
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.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…