Question about dark matter.

reply to post by brazenalderpadrescorpio


We all make judgments. You made a judgement on a large part of the population and didn't even add " some atheists" or "a lot of atheists" as a disclaimer. You said we were all incapable of feeling wonder.

I on the other hand said. I don't often get that kind of logic from the true believers. Key word = Often. I didn't say no Christian could be logical......

So who's judgmental? And who's savior ordered them not to be? The flying spegetti monster is very pro judgmental.

reply to post by ArtemisE


Just because you don't get that kind of logic often, doesn't mean that Christians (which I am not, necessarily) are not logical. The appearance of logic can be subjective. A virus is logical. Everything and everybody expresses intelligence in its own way.

reply to post by brazenalderpadrescorpio


Obviously you are a Christian or you wouldn't have added " necessarily".

I specifically said that I did not say all Christians were illogical and That you said ALL atheists couldn't have wonder.

I never put all Christians or religious in one mold. You put all Athiests in one.


Logic is not subjective. Opinions are subjective. Philosophy is subjective. Logic is closer to math. 2+2 logically is 3.

reply to post by ArtemisE


There is at least one physicist (you'd have to look it up; trust me, it's not something I've made up) that says that mathematics may be a mental construct (that is, exclusive to human thought). If that's true, then everything is subjective.

Edit: Here's just one link.

reply to post by onequestion


Nobody is obliged to provide you with an education. The answers to the questions you have asked are all freely available. Learn them yourself.

reply to post by Astyanax


He's using the Socratic Method. I'm not condoning or denouncing what he's doing, but that's what it is. I'm not trying to say that you didn't know that.

smithjustinb
Objects in space move towards other objects in space.

I think you mean they are gravitationally attracted to each other. Galaxies appear to have relative motion away from each other in spite of this attraction so the attraction alone doesn't determine the direction of movement. A rocket being launched is still gravitationally attracted to Earth, but it's not moving toward Earth.

When those objects are becoming further separated, doesn't the attractive force of gravity have less of an influence, and therefore the objects don't get flung out? Its centrifugal force, not the expansion of space that would be causing the stars to get flung out.

Galaxies are in a sense "being flung out" from each other. Stars within them are not being flung out from the galaxies as the rotational speeds would suggest if there's no dark matter. So your latter statement seems to answer your own question why the metric expansion of space offers no explanation on the rotation speeds of galaxies, right?

And by the way centrifugal force is a fictitious force.

Centrifugal force is most commonly introduced as an outward force apparent in a rotating frame of reference. It is apparent (fictitious) in the sense that it is not part of an interaction but is a result of rotation — with no reaction-force counterpart. This type of force is associated with describing motion in a non-inertial reference frame, and referred to as a fictitious or inertial force

reply to post by brazenalderpadrescorpio


That's not the Socratic method, he's just being obnoxious.

A clear fluid, completely at one with itself in all directions.. add a coloured substance, say blue.. that is matter. it floats in the fluid, moving with the ebb and flow... dark matter is where the blue isn't.

gravity is just the way the fluid moves, what we see as gravity is just how that fluid reacts on a small scale to the blue - the earth, the moon, the sun, the milky way, spiral galaxies.. but on a grand scale it moves galaxies and entire universes as one wave washing along an invisible ocean.

reply to post by brazenalderpadrescorpio


It's not true... Obviously. Even if consciousness is more powerful than we know, and it could be. 2 suns plus 2 suns is 4 suns. Weather we are here to see it or not. The whole premiss for math is that it's exact, not subjective.

I'm all about alternative theories! But you can't latch on to one unknown in the standard model and claim it's proof of your theory. Your theory would have to match EVERY observable thing and still work. ( I don't mean you specifically amigo)


Kinda like with intelligent design and evolution. If evolution wasn't at least mostly right then cloning and gene therapy wouldn't work. Along with half of modern medicine and vaccines. Bad info like creationists throw out. Can explain one thing we see that's an anomaly to evolution, but it wouldn't fit everything else.

reply to post by ArtemisE


I'm just trying to show you that there is a debate about that going on. You can pretty much take it or leave it. I'm also not saying that it's necessarily true, or even that I believe that. I personally think that the truth, when it comes to something like mathematics as an example, is more complex than people usually suppose.

reply to post by brazenalderpadrescorpio


There is no debate about weather math is subjective....the exacts of gravity and mass are debatable. But not weather math is subjective.

reply to post by ArtemisE


I take it you didn't read the article I linked to.

Toromos
reply to post by brazenalderpadrescorpio

 

I don't think I'm saying that. From what I understand dark matter is a form of matter that we have not been able to detect. Because it is matter, however, it does create gravitational attraction like visible matter. It's my understanding that dark matter is currently needed as a hypothesis precisely because the visible matter that we can see cannot account for various instances of gravitational attraction, especially at the large scale of galaxies attracting each other in galaxy clusters.

I've been taking a really hard look at Einstein's theory of General Relativity, and how it isolates its description of gravity to the macro-system and makes it impossible to scale that description to the micro-system, and it occurred to me that when a system emerges - even a simple one, like an orbital trajectory - that system will always persist unchanged until it is affected by a force (like friction or gravity) to the degree that it begins experiencing entropy. Newton's 1st Law of Motion.

The thing is that we experience these larger systems that are under constant assault, with the net result being that entropy hovers over everything that we know to exist. Still, the unmolested predilection is to persist unchanged, and that's important to note. That basic influence does exist, and even if it can't successfully resist the destructive impact of dynamic forces and/or competing systems, it does exist as real and it does exist at all system levels - from the micro to the macro.

In the micro-system, we call it Strong and Weak Nuclear Force, and at the macro-system level, we call it Gravity. At the micro-system level, it acts more aggressively, but then, at that level, it can, without disrupting the lesser systems contained within the system being served by these forces. Hell, what other systems...right? Quarks are likely held together by the same Strong Nuclear Force that holds Protons and Neutrons together, but how would we be able to verify that. And the Weak Nuclear Force is what holds the electrons in place; even forcing them back into their original quantum state when they "leap" from time to time. No intermediate systems to impact there either.

Gravity, however, is a much different force, and it is because it has to be. There are countless lesser systems that make up the macro-systems that are served by gravity as the system survival force it is (in the same manner that the Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces are for the micro-system). A crushing force holding a planetary macro-system together would make system development and survival impossible for any system hoping to exist as integral to that planetary macro-system. It's called holon structuring, and each layer of a holon structure is just as important to the survival of the apical structure as each other level. This requires the binding force to be sophisticated and extremely malleable in how it addresses the job of holding the entire system together (in the same way that everything from orbital trajectories to atoms are held together in the way that Newton's 1st Law of Motion suggests).

I've realized that this fact concerning system survival definitely challenges Einstein's theory of General Relativity, and I'd have serious issues with even attempting to take that particular sacred cow on, but it does suggest that the same impetus that causes Newton's 1st Law of Motion to be a law is the same impetus that inflicts Strong and Weak Nuclear Force on sub-atomic particles, and (when seen in this light) the same thing that is experienced as a gravitational field keeping the macro-system intact (from planets to entire galaxies).

My own thoughts on the subject involve information and the scaling of that same system survival impetus to the universal system level, with Reality existing as a relationship matrix consisting of naturally emergent residual information sets that (acting as that system's own default survival strategy) impose order as precedent in service of the universal system's ongoing survival in the same way that gravity, Strong and Weak Nuclear Force, and Newton's law of inertia serve those lesser systems that Reality itself is comprised of.

This would make these forces also imposed as a result of residual information precedent's passive management of material existence, and not something that's initiated by particles or massless energy bosons, although we would probably only be able to measure the impact of this system influence second hand, as is the case with wind as it moves gas molecules against material structures.

Dark Matter....

I'll have to wait until I get a green light on that one. Can't really discuss that one yet. I can say that its existence can be explained in detail, but that's all I can say right now.

brazenalderpadrescorpio
reply to post by ArtemisE

 

There is at least one physicist (you'd have to look it up; trust me, it's not something I've made up) that says that mathematics may be a mental construct (that is, exclusive to human thought). If that's true, then everything is subjective.

Edit: Here's just one link.

edit on bWed, 05 Mar 2014 01:50:02 -0600am63America/Chicago3amWednesday05America/Chicago by brazenalderpadrescorpio because: (no reason given)

This is true. Math is the secular mind's version of God. A perfect order that's uncontaminated by contextual "dirt". The problem is that Reality is comprised of contextual contamination and "dirt". Math is therefore useless as a theoretical tool. It's only useful if you know all the contextual sets involved and can accurately factor them into your equation. Reality, as a whole, changes per Quantum instant of Now, which makes building the sets you'd need to factor into your equation impossible to determine.

I always get frustrated when math is used to try and "proof" a Reality theory. I'm reminded of Elvis Costello's “Writing about music is like dancing about architecture - it's really a stupid thing to want to do.”

NorEaster


This is true. Math is the secular mind's version of God. A perfect order that's uncontaminated by contextual "dirt". The problem is that Reality is comprised of contextual contamination and "dirt". Math is therefore useless as a theoretical tool. It's only useful if you know all the contextual sets involved and can accurately factor them into your equation.

Mathematics is useful only as a theoretical tool. Physicists include all the "contextual sets involved" (i.e. connection to physical prediction) which is the difference between what they do and pure mathematics.

Reality, as a whole, changes per Quantum instant of Now, which makes building the sets you'd need to factor into your equation impossible to determine.

Can you put that in math? It's mostly jibberish right now.

I always get frustrated when math is used to try and "proof" a Reality theory

Mathematics is useful to show consequences of reality which are embedded in mathematically described physical principles.

I'm glad that 2 people at least accept that the theory exists, and that it may be valid.

reply to post by brazenalderpadrescorpio


What was your theory?

I never had anyone answer if the OP ment. That the expansion of the universe (dark energy). Might have a correlating contracting force that we register as dark matter.

Like, the more the universe stretches out between galaxies. The more it "squeezes in" in the areas galaxies form.

reply to post by ArtemisE


It wasn't about dark matter. It was way off-topic.

I like to think that it's imagination that causes the expansion of the universe. We sit around, we think up things that never existed, and the result of our thinking of these things gives them a kind of existence, with real mass/energy involved. So the more we imagine stuff, the more energy is pulled out of "nowhere," and that pushes everything apart. The universe has to get bigger to make more room for our thoughts.