It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Dark Matter is Even Weirder Than You Thought

page: 8
54
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Wonder if the answer to the dark matter/gravity conundrum could be something crazy like this




posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Like I said in a previous post, I can’t shed much light on the subject of the OP. DM/DE is beyond the limits of our current knowledge. A lot of folks are taking their best shot at it, but at present we just can’t get there from here. It may well turn out that our entire approach to the problem is on shaky ground from the get go. Considering the current state of physics, I can’t help but think that the entire logical foundation is questionable, and at best inadequate to explain even the observable universe, let alone the unobservable.

IMO, a good physicist should be able to both calculate, and also have a deeply intuitive understanding of the problem at hand. Einstein’s keen intuition permitted him to apply logical interpretations to his calculations. The formulation of Relativity was a consequence of both calculations and extraordinary insight. Not one or the other. Einstein himself wrote about his famous train thought experiment, which led to a simple mathematical calculation involving triangles (8th grade math). Thinking about light, and then calculating led to his paper on the photo-electric effect, which formalized the concept of light quanta (photons).

Physicists like Einstein and Newton looked at problems through the lens of both a mathematician and a philosopher, rather than practicing the ‘shut up and calculate’ method. To me, understanding the significance of a calculation is somehow more satisfying than taking it at face value and thinking, “It’s futile to assign any fundamental reality to a calculation - as long as the numbers add up, your job’s done”. I realize I’m interjecting ‘feelings’ into the process, but I’m unable to view the universe from the perspective of a machine intelligence. Honestly, I don’t know that absolute objectivity is something humans are capable of, but I do think a universe without meaning would be unfulfilling.

Many advocate the position that mastery of a field is necessary before you can do creative work in it. You have to make the journey to the bleeding edge of current knowledge before taking the next step into darkness. This might seem logical, but in the real world it’s not always the case. A certain degree of understanding, yes, but a ‘mastery’ of the field maybe not so much. As for true genious, it seems to me that many of the greatest creative achievments, significant breakthroughs and leaps of logic, occured while the person was in their 20’s or 30’s. Perhaps this is because they hadn’t yet been exposed long enough to the stifling, suffocating roadblocks inherent in the peer community accepted protocol. They were still green and didn’t yet know they weren’t supposed to ‘go there’.

Much of physics (classical mechanics, relativitisic mechanics, quantum mechanics) is based on a foundation of either ‘quantum logic’ or ‘classical logic’ or a mixture of the two. However, neither approach is without flaws. To tackle the universe as a whole, as a system, may require a completely different logical framework/perspective; one better suited to allow the anomalies observed. This logic might require more flexibility than a human mind can currently accommodate. It seems we’re continually observing phenomena outside our ability to reason. Fuzzy, dark areas that fall into unexplainable niches like:

real, but not quite
with properties, but not quite
there, but not quite
then, but not quite
causal, but not quite
deterministic, but not quite

Using the logic of your choice, which of the following is true?

1 - reality is continuous
2 - reality is discrete
3 - either 1 or 2
4 - neither 1 nor 2
5 - both 1 and 2

Answer? The jury’s still out. Although a lot of hot debate is ongoing, there’s still no consensus...

IMO, it may be we’ll never understand the most fundamental of truths. It may be too vast to attain, or simply beyond our capacity to understand as humans. But at the same time, it’s a challenge that can’t be ignored...

Cool thread...



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Mastronaut


It may take forever, we don't know if it's possible to understand nature completely. However our theories are not just incomplete. They have to include mechanisms ad-hoc to explain certain features, which is something that gives a hint about how close to reality they are.

I'm not saying all of our models are perfect nor am I saying they don't have problems. You keep saying the same thing over and over again as if you think I don't understand the point you're trying to make. I'm obviously not trying to push the standard model, the purpose of this thread is to show that the standard model is clearly faulty and can't explain many of our recent observations relating to DM. Your problem is that you basically throw all of science out the window and you wont accept any evidence that anyone presents to you. That's not a logical way of doing science.


We often overlook at how we do discoveries, which isn't throught theories (Except at large and micro scales). Experiments and intuition make the breakthroughs then theories come in to explain stuff.

Funnily enough that is exactly how the theory of dark matter was developed. Our experiments indicated some type of missing mass, so cosmologists developed different theories to explain what they were seeing, and the theory of weakly interacting massive particles just happens to be the most successful so far. Like you I don't agree with that model, I think DM is something much stranger and probably isn't a particle at all. That's what this entire thread is about, so you're basically arguing the same thing I am without even realizing it.


I'm not really using it interchangeably, mass is the quantity of energy in matter. Photons energy is due to their momentum, not mass, so no form of energy has mass. Mass is the higgs field coupling in the SM, matter isn't. Also relativistic mass is not exactly mass since mass is a property of matter and matter at relativistic speed don't acquire mass in their own reference frame.

Mass is not just the quantity of energy in the matter, it's the total quantity of energy in the entire system. Photons do in fact have a relativistic mass, they just don't have a rest mass because the only mass they have is due to their momentum, that is why it's impossible to make a photon stop moving. If you cannot accept the idea that kinetic energy possesses a mass then perhaps the example of binding energy will convince you that all forms of energy have a mass associated with them:


Nuclei are made up of protons and neutron, but the mass of a nucleus is always less than the sum of the individual masses of the protons and neutrons which constitute it. The difference is a measure of the nuclear binding energy which holds the nucleus together. This binding energy can be calculated from the Einstein relationship:

Nuclear binding energy = Δmc2

Nuclear Binding Energy


More examples:


Whenever energy is added to a system, the system gains mass:

* A spring's mass increases whenever it is put into compression or tension. Its added mass arises from the added potential energy stored within it, which is bound in the stretched chemical (electron) bonds linking the atoms within the spring.

* Raising the temperature of an object (increasing its heat energy) increases its mass. For example, consider the world's primary mass standard for the kilogram, made of platinum/iridium. If its temperature is allowed to change by 1 °C, its mass will change by 1.5 picograms (1 pg = 1×10−12 g).[36]

* A spinning ball will weigh more than a ball that is not spinning. Its increase of mass is exactly the equivalent of the mass of energy of rotation, which is itself the sum of the kinetic energies of all the moving parts of the ball. For example, the Earth itself is more massive due to its daily rotation, than it would be with no rotation. This rotational energy (2.14×1029 J) represents 2.38 billion metric tons of added mass.[37]

en.wikipedia.org...



So before being sure that DM exist as matter or exotic matter, I'm gonna wait for an experimental proof and won't laugh at other fringe theories that try to explain it in another way.

In this thread I have argued that DM is not any type of particle and I've put forward my own fringe theory which proposed that DM is a gravitational illusion. Yet here you are lecturing me that I don't pay enough credit to fringe theories and it's absolutely ridiculous. There is a reason I've been an ATS member for many years, I don't trust mainstream science to research fringe theories like they should. But I also understand when mainstream science is actually on the right track.

edit on 16/2/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: netbound

Reality is quantitatively finite (discrete)
Reality is qualitatively infinite (continuous); due to Time being infinite/continuous



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: OOOOOO


So yes it might be the universe is smaller than we think and expansion doesn't exist.
It could last a lot longer than 23 trillion years, what do you think about forever, it was and always will be here?
Everything is created out of the aether. Space is only created by discharge where on the other hand charge is the "destruction" of space. What i want to say is empty space do not exist.
Compare it with a permanent magnet, creating and eliminating space at the same time, we better know it as attraction and repulsion.


If they are correct about the size of this universe, it is small, it has been given a number, it has been counted, it is finite. It does appear to be expanding at this time.

That which "has always been and will always be" is out side of the confines of this universe.

If so, what are your aethers, created out of.

Yes, I agree empty space, does not, not exist. Referring to the Nothing, Great Void, is neither large, nor small, it can not be measured, as it has no dimensions. There is No Thing, in the Nothing, if there were, it would of become the Something. Space is not endless.The closet thing to a true infinity would be the Nothing, though not being realized as such with out the perspective of the Something. The Nothing is boundless.

But then my reference, is from within the bounds, of this perspective, "universe". So what do I know, Nothing.
edit on 16-2-2015 by OOOOOO because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 12:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: netbound

Reality is quantitatively finite (discrete)
Reality is qualitatively infinite (continuous); due to Time being infinite/continuous

Personally I would say that both space and time are quantized at the Planck scale because continuous space-time seems to have so many conceptual and mathematical issues associated with it. I also tend to lean towards the flat infinite model of space-time because all the current evidence supports that model and it's the most elegant solution in my opinion because it allows the universe to have a zero total energy content. So I would say that space-time is separated into discrete units like everything else in nature, but the extent of space-time is infinite in all directions, in other words there is no end to the universe, so it's continuous in that sense.
edit on 16/2/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 12:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

Personally I would say that both space and time are quantized at the Planck scale because continuous space-time seems to have so many conceptual and mathematical issues associated with it. I also tend to lean towards the flat infinite model of space-time because all the current evidence supports that model and it's the most elegant solution in my opinion because it allows the universe to have a zero total energy content. So I would say that space-time is separated into discrete units like everything else in nature, but the extent of space-time is infinite in all directions, in other words there is no end to the universe, so it's continuous in that sense.


This is a very nice picture !

I see it the same way, just with different variables.
The smallest possible quanta is infinite small in an infinite large Universe.

Propagation speed in EM field slows down with its density and gravity is a byproduct of electric interaction.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 01:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

Personally I would say that both space and time are quantized at the Planck scale because continuous space-time seems to have so many conceptual and mathematical issues associated with it. .


This is a very nice picture !

I see it the same way, just with different variables.
The smallest possible quanta is infinite small in an infinite large Universe.

Propagation speed in EM field slows down with its density and gravity is a byproduct of electric interaction.


From what I have been told, there seems to be a problem with both, the infinite small or the infinite large. It's like if you have some thing and say I can slice this a infinite number of times. At some point it becomes pointless as it will not cause you to gain any further information.
The same in the perspective of this universe, it would be pointless to say I have a infinite amount of numbers, as once a certain number was reached, any attempted use of number would be useless. Say 4 googolplexs and 6, you would need to go outside of this universe, to apply this number, and still?

As I said before this universe is not infinite, it's finite.

All possibilities have already occurred, regardless.
edit on 16-2-2015 by OOOOOO because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 02:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: netbound

Reality is quantitatively finite (discrete)
Reality is qualitatively infinite (continuous); due to Time being infinite/continuous

Personally I would say that both space and time are quantized at the Planck scale because continuous space-time seems to have so many conceptual and mathematical issues associated with it.



Time is not 'a thing'.

Time is an aspect of things existing.

Things exist.

That is the purest statement that can be made.

Rather than absolutely nothing eternally existing, 'some 'thing' ness' exists.

This is called reality (that which exists).

Now we add a level of trickiness, but we have no fear, and we hate ignorance, and we are always questioning everything as we are heading towards the purest truth.

That which exists (the fact there is non nothing, stuff, thing, things, somethings, somethingness)...

That which exists is not eternally static (static as in; no change).

Reality is not; the totality of stuff, (things, somethingness, object) that eternally does not move or change in any way.

Reality...stuff. Moves and changes (I suppose movement is the primary essence of 'change at all').

That, and only that, is what 'time' is.

Look no further.

That is time.

Stuff exists. That stuff is not eternally static/stationary. We refer to this fact, as time.

Stuff exists. Stuff changes/moves. We need a word to describe the existence of this fact. The word, 'time' will do.


The stuff that exists.

Energy.

Cannot be created or destroyed.

There cannot be pure absolute perfect eternal nothing; and then have something/thing/stuff/non nothing 'come'/be made 'from' this scenario.

So we must use logic to deduct backwards.

It is true that our existence is evidence that there is more than absolute pure eternal only nothing.

We call this non nothing. We call this something, stuff, thing, somethingness, energy, matter, thingness.

This stuff cannot 'be created', as we have said, the meaning of those words would insinuate taking absolute pure perfect nothing, and using ONLY absolute pure nothing to create non nothing.

This stuff cannot be destroyed, because that would be taking non nothing, stuff, real thing, and 'making is completely disappear', which is meaningless, because 'it would have no where to disappear to'.

Because you cannot take nothing and add it together to produce something. You cannot take something and subtract and divide it to produce nothing.

Because of this. Because energy cannot be created or destroyed. Because stuff exists, it therefore has always existed and always will exist. Because the stuff that exists is not static. Therefore, because the stuff that exists changes/moves. We existing right now, obviously and defaultly, as well as any being that has ever and will ever exist, exists amidst the stuff that exists and changes and moves. The fact that stuff exists that cannot be created or destroyed equals the fact that the propensity for the stuff that exists to change and move cannot be determined. I must suppose it is possible that at a certain point of time in the future, the totality of stuff will no longer move/change, and become a perfect, from then on out, eternally static object. I also must suppose that due to the nature of utilizing the term 'eternally', it is possible that given a true eternity as a perfect static object, there is no way for me to argue the impossibility of the static nature again caving into change/movement.

I am not sure if that is relevant, in regards to what i wished to focus on in this explanation, which is my statement that time is infinite and continuous.

I think time is continuous, because as I have mentioned above, any being that exists will always exist amidst the movement/changing of stuff. So objectively, the fact will remain that as long as the totality of stuff contains movement, the term 'time' which is a descriptive word of nothing other than the fact that stuff exists and the stuff that exists moves/changes, the time, will be continuous.

The existence of change is continuous. That is to say; that which exists, is continuously changing.

Space-time is not an effort to express objective reality; the concept of space-time is a tool for humans to best organize their comprehension of reality.

As far as 'space' being quantized.

There is absolute, pure, perfect, nothing.

And there is stuff.

Stuff is quantized (energy cannot be created or destroyed...therefore always exact)

Absolute, pure, perfect, nothing; 'does not exist'.

Yes, that is tricky, and i dont welcome the usually silly knee jerks of 'well its a word so it exists', so if that would be your angle, save it. I do welcome; 'the distance between two objects in absolute,pure, perfect nothing space, would be 'a real distance', and have an effect on the way the objects interacted. My initial urge is to say that any effects and interactions between the objects are purely due to the intrinsic nature of the objects themselves, and yes you can separate them at distances but the distance itself (in this nothing example) doesnt intrinsically have any characteristics, besides the absence of any characteristics. So i would, i believe successfully argue, that nothing space is not intrinsically or objectively quantified... though yes now i see that i may be wrong in an exact sense.

The exact sense I am wrong in, is yes obviously the nature of the idea of the planck length. But I wonder if they understand/understood how freaking fundamental it really gets...

Because the truth is, if you are talking about the nothing space, which I suppose you must, as well as the material/energetic field spaces (gravity, em, that we cant 'see' or 'physically' detect yet the actual material nature of these fields, we can just see their phenomenal results) the quantization is a comparison to the quantization of matter.

If you and I were pure spirits hypothetically floating in pure nothing space, and I had 50 identical marbles and that was it, and i placed them together, it would appear that would be the quantization of space, until we learned about the particles that made up the marbles at least.

But to really get down to the nitty gritty of the true quantization of nothing space (and i would need a few years to discuss with the smartest people in the world what they thought about the true nature of 'smaller than 3d dimensions is, means, is possible etc.) we would have to start with something, and exponentially shrink it, until it was on the very precipice of being the tiniest possible conceivable theoretical hypothetical something, until; if something could be destroyed, if this speck was divided again it would no longer exist. The dividing line between 2d and 3d is what I am speaking of. In theory (I dont think i believe in 2d, thats why i need that long expert discussion), stack how many 2d objects on one another until you have 3d object? How many times to divide smallest 3d object until its 2d? This should be the planck length, the first physical unit of dimension after 2d. According to our current units of physicality (marble analogy) we have no idea, we are comparing to our units of matter, not to seemingly mysterious units of fundamental geometric physicality figuring out the true units of nothing.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 02:36 AM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

I know in my last expression I explained my views very badly, so let me try to be concise and clear quickly;

When we look at the earth as a mass, and want to know how much gravity is accountable for, are we not doing so in regards to how far away from the earth until other masses are no longer effected by the existence of the earth in the common gravity field?

I am wondering; if yes, the square of the distance; if this concept is only one half of the essence of mass interaction with gravity field.

If perhaps at a certain distance away from a mass, other masses are no longer attracted towards the mass; because; the nature of this attraction, (3 dimensional field curvature; energy density re alterer) is due to masses presence in a field of particles, vacating the particles from its local vicinity ( initially this is why i was urged to posit that the movement of bodies may be very important or even key to the nature of mass to mass attraction, but alas that is digression), so now all those particles that have been vacated at least the square of the distance, are now, located at least the square of the distance away from the mass; these being, real particles, with real mass, and potentially given even more real relativistic mass.

I was using the earth as example, but utilize the galaxy for example, loads of gravity field particles flung to the outskirts of the galaxy, the edge, perhaps still momentously caught in multi directional spinning (extra relativistic mass, plus a spinning as the galaxy), perhaps even more mass/gravity is created if gravity particles can interact with themselves. In essence, this theory expresses the creation of a 'shield' of sorts around a galaxy, with even further theoretical help from the potential nature of dark energy, interacting with all these gravity particles at the edge (which have been displaced, excavated from inside the galaxy to the outside) creating even more mass and more gravity, and potentially just an interaction which instead of the pooled particles continuously drifting off into space, are urged back towards the galaxy, potentially with the angular momentum as well.

Last question; Are you an honorable enough man that if you do consider what I am saying and work on this and share with your colleagues, that you will share with me the nobel prize?



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 03:54 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Fantastic thread.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 06:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: Mastronaut

I'm not saying all of our models are perfect nor am I saying they don't have problems. You keep saying the same thing over and over again as if you think I don't understand the point you're trying to make. I'm obviously not trying to push the standard model, the purpose of this thread is to show that the standard model is clearly faulty and can't explain many of our recent observations relating to DM. Your problem is that you basically throw all of science out the window and you wont accept any evidence that anyone presents to you. That's not a logical way of doing science.


Accepting evidence is far different than being sure about it. What you call evidence is in fact so only in a certain context.
I'm reapeating over and over a thing you seem to misinterpret: you can't use evidence based on postulates of a theory I don't take as granted. Let's move on from this point cause it's becoming circular.


Funnily enough that is exactly how the theory of dark matter was developed. Our experiments indicated some type of missing mass, so cosmologists developed different theories to explain what they were seeing, and the theory of weakly interacting massive particles just happens to be the most successful so far. Like you I don't agree with that model, I think DM is something much stranger and probably isn't a particle at all. That's what this entire thread is about, so you're basically arguing the same thing I am without even realizing it.


Yes, even if in different context we are saying more or less the same thing. However I wasn't referring to astronomy when talking about discoveries. The exeperiments which I was referring to are the classical tech dicoveries of the past.


Mass is not just the quantity of energy in the matter, it's the total quantity of energy in the entire system. Photons do in fact have a relativistic mass, they just don't have a rest mass because the only mass they have is due to their momentum, that is why it's impossible to make a photon stop moving. If you cannot accept the idea that kinetic energy possesses a mass then perhaps the example of binding energy will convince you that all forms of energy have a mass associated with them...


I still don't understand what kind of mass therm are you using. I supposed the QM one (Higgs coupling), but you now talk about GR tensor. I have no problem accepting the idea that mass is energy, but is not the same so what's it? another name or does it have different characteristics? In particle physics mass is a property, the usual "rest mass" and it doesn't change. Otherwise just call it energy.


In this thread I have argued that DM is not any type of particle and I've put forward my own fringe theory which proposed that DM is a gravitational illusion. Yet here you are lecturing me that I don't pay enough credit to fringe theories and it's absolutely ridiculous. There is a reason I've been an ATS member for many years, I don't trust mainstream science to research fringe theories like they should. But I also understand when mainstream science is actually on the right track.


Well I'm sure if you reread I'm not saying that YOU don't pay enough credit to fringe theories. However you use mainstream theories to prove evidence to me (that's what I was debating) when it's processed data.
Noboby knows for sure when science is on the right track, at best you can find useful a certain interpretation of data.
edit on 16 2 2015 by Mastronaut because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 06:20 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder
From a story I am attempting to write:


Dark Energy is 72% of our universe and Dark Matter, which bends light due to its' mass is 23% so you can figure just 5% of our universe is visible and mostly known by our science. Dark Energy is what causes the universe to expand/inflate at an ever increasing rate; it is a repulsive energy. You would think it would be a major power house in this universe but it is actually a decimal point followed by 122 zeros and a 1. Any stronger force and the galaxies, planets, and suns could not exist so, neither could we.


At this stage of my cosmological understanding (or admittedly lack there of) I am becoming more and more of an 'M' theory kinda guy.

I wonder sometimes if many of the things we observe in our dimensional universe is because we are tied to the Brane that gave birth to the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory has never been able to explain what banged, why it banged, and what caused the Bang until string/ 'M' theory came along..The inflation we see through our instruments could be simply because the Brane Our universe is connect to is actually growing. Certain regions of space where dark matter is most prevalent is because that area of space is closer than other areas to a Brane. Leakage occurs from the Brane and is everywhere however the closer in proximity (think multiverse) a universe is to its' home boy Brane the greater the effect.

Gravity is what holds the Branes of the multiverse close together and Dark energy is what keeps them separated and is where our dimensional’s weak gravity and space time is joined.

I don't remember if I made this up or I heard it someplace but supposedly the space/dimension where the Branes exist has ten to the sixteenth power of gravity when compared to Earth's gravity field and through its' leakage into our dimensional universe we arrive at a constant of our measured gravity effects on all bodies. Sir Isaac Newton's universal theory of gravity works because of this constant metered leakage from the Brane Zone...

When Dark energy and Dark matter was first postulated I just figured that much of the missing mass that stops galaxies from flying apart was due to unseen planets and other undetected dark bodies (I did not know any better about just how much missing mass there really was) but the more I have looked at 'M' theory and its' consequences for or lived in universe the more I have respected all the effort that has gone into explaining the unexplainable ....

hahaha makes sense to me kinda sorta youtu.be...






edit on 16-2-2015 by 727Sky because: ..



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: OOOOOO




The Aether, or "Ether" as described by Nikola Tesla:

"Ether is the cause of every magnetic field."

"Electicity could not exist without ether."

"Ether is the medium for every electromagnetic wave, from radio waves to gamma rays."

"Every particle in the universe is bathed in a sea of ether, including the orbiting electrons of atoms and plasma."

"Ether is how particles moving near the speed of light in a vacuum "know" how fast they are moving, even if they are accelerated very, very slowly."

"When ether get cold enough, its properties change, causing strange phenomena to both atoms and light. In fact using very cold temperatures is a way to isolate exactly what ether affects. It may turn out that very cold temperatures are to "ether physics" as accelerators are to particle physics."

"Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point in the universe. This idea is not novel... we find it in the delightful myth of Antheus, who derives power from the earth; we find it amoung the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians.... Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic? If static our hopes are in vain, if kinetic - and this we know it is, for certain - then it is a mere question of time when men shall succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature."


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Or as Eric Dollard believes it's made out of dielectricity.


If you know nothing, you believe to know everything



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: OOOOOO

You made an interesting point there.
I had to think about magnets(again), no matter how many time you brake, slice, divide a magnet,
it will always have a 'N and S pole'. It's basic configuration and behavior stays the same.
So in the end you will find a tiny charged particle who's discharge is the production of a magnetic field.

Or

With numbers, does infinity exists? Off course, i can always add +1 to a number.
Is it really? Or is it just a loop which repeats itself at 9?



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Actually if MS can define and understand gravity, then dark matter will not be a mystery.
Ambient time explains the flat rotational speeds
Btw good thread
a reply to: ChaoticOrder




posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Nice post.
but I still think physicists are blind.
its like them looking at a UFO and
saying they had squid for dinner.
they just make us think they are smart.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky


I wonder sometimes if many of the things we observe in our dimensional universe is because we are tied to the Brane that gave birth to the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory has never been able to explain what banged, why it banged, and what caused the Bang until string/ 'M' theory came along

In my oppinion the Brane theory doesn't really help explain the origins of the universe, it just shifts our focus onto the Brane-verse and we are forced to ask what gave rise to these Branes, why do they behave the way they do, why are they governed by one set of laws rather than another set, etc. We aren't going to uncover the secrets of reality if we start with such a high level abstraction of reality.
edit on 17/2/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder



We aren't going to uncover the secrets of reality if we start with such a high level abstraction of reality.


Why would that be?

Do you somehow, deludedly think, that the real truth is anything that a human mind could even come close to understanding?



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 03:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: ChaoticOrder



We aren't going to uncover the secrets of reality if we start with such a high level abstraction of reality.


Why would that be?

Do you somehow, deludedly think, that the real truth is anything that a human mind could even come close to understanding?

I don't know if we will every really understand how reality works, it's obviously much stranger than we had first predicted, but I do know there must be some simple rules which govern it all, and all the complexity arises from those simple rules. Brane theory proponents claim the theory does just that by decomposing the universe into a set of simple branes that interact at a very fundamental level of reality. But it's still a very high level concept when you really think about, the Brane-verse is like a world of it's own with all sorts of complicated interactions and laws. It's just not the low level theory some people make it out to be and it doesn't help much to explain the origins of the universe imo.
edit on 18/2/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
54
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join