Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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."
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.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.
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.
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.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.
Why? What makes you believe that? What parts of EU theory have you even studied?Well there are most likely have to better ideas than an 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.I'm sure it will shift but if we get a theory for quantum gravity I suspect it won't be towards EU.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).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?
But we will never be able to do experiments for many , if any cosmological processes.
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).
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?