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.

 

Exposing the Myths of Settled Science

page: 20
14
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Mary Rose
reply to post by wildespace
 


So, are you a proponent of dark matter?


Think of dark matter this way: Weakly Interacting Massive Particles. Particles that interact with gravity, but not electromagnetism. When these types of particles encounter "Ordinary" matter, the kind we are made of and interact with, they just fly right through; like a neutrino but much more massive. So, why couldn't there be matter like that in the Universe? It's as good a theory as any.




posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   

dragonridr
 

You are really stuck on this idea of the planets and suns just being atoms. but as i explained atoms dont look like that at all at there basic level they are just clouds.

Never trust an atom, they make up everything.
edit on 2013-10-23 by Galileo400 because: misspelled a word



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Galileo400
Never trust an atom, they make up everything.
I know it's an attempt at humor, but they don't make up everything...95% of the universe is not atoms, though we're not exactly sure what the other 95% is except to say it's 68% dark energy and 27% dark matter which are not really understood.


Galileo400
Think of dark matter this way: Weakly Interacting Massive Particles.
It will be easier if we actually find evidence of those, and ATS member ErosA433 is trying to do that. Some scientists haven't given up on MOND, but most seem to lean more toward WIMPs.
edit on 23-10-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 08:53 PM
link   

ImaFungi
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


You know that Ibm video showing the moving atoms? In the video you just linked it showed how small the nucleus was and that atoms are mostly empty space. So in that IBM video what were we seeing? Were we seeing light reflecting off electron orbital and thats what appeared solid?

Besides ignorance and illogical convenience, why do you like to pretend the universe came from nothing and will return, why do you like to pretend you, your computer, the room your in, the planet and sun, are actually nothing, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU THINK, about the universe being nothing, and then nothing beginning to vibrate, and then everything beginning to be created, but how do you think that makes sense? It is stupid, I want to break something with how stupid that idea is. You are a disgrace to logic and truth, you are a liar to me and yourself. You dont know the fundamental nature, quality and quantity of space, the most primal energy and manifold of reality, but you are calling it nothing, nothing has a pretty specific definition, it is possibly the most well defined and understand idea that can exist, and its definition is true nothingness. Understand this, please understand this... true nothingness, if you want to use the word nothing, CAN NEVER DO ANYTHING, can never be anything, can never ever. It is nothing. Nowwwwwwwwwww if you say, nothing existed, and then it fluctuated and created matter and the universe, you are lying, what you state in that equation as nothing, is not really nothing, so sciences job as a scientist, your job as a physicist or seeker of truth, is to not lie to yourself and/or be stupid, but to discover what you think you thought was nothing, what that really was, what its true nature is, what its composition is, how it works, why it works how it works, what it is, what it is , what it is.



Ok as i was explaining there can never be truly nothing remember that is a void. And voids cannot exist so when we discuss vacuums people think well there's nothing there but as i pointed out to you thats not true. Its packed full of energy.And would require huge amounts of energy to actually make a void.Energy has always existed and will always exist remember it cannot be created or destroyed only changed. Physicists dont lie to ourselves quite the opposite actually. We are always willing to reshape our ideas test our beliefs confirm or deny a theory.Get a room full of physicist together and i guarantee an argument to break out because its part of the job to question everything.Consider physicists to be the ultimate skeptics they literally question everything in the universe even to what extent its real.



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Galileo400

Mary Rose
reply to post by wildespace
 


So, are you a proponent of dark matter?


Think of dark matter this way: Weakly Interacting Massive Particles. Particles that interact with gravity, but not electromagnetism. When these types of particles encounter "Ordinary" matter, the kind we are made of and interact with, they just fly right through; like a neutrino but much more massive. So, why couldn't there be matter like that in the Universe? It's as good a theory as any.


Your right what people dont understand is dark matter isnt a theory we know its there its been observed. We know something is causing an interaction with gravity we just have no clue what it is. Its very much like finding a foot print on the beach it tells you someones there you just dont know what they look like.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Arbitrageur
95% of the universe is not atoms, though we're not exactly sure what the other 95% is except to say it's 68% dark energy and 27% dark matter which are not really understood.


What percent is plasma?



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


You mean to say gravity as we think we know it.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 05:13 AM
link   
Regarding the use of the fudge factor:




posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 06:12 AM
link   
From a 68 page .pdf file "An Aether Model of the Universe":





posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Mary Rose

Arbitrageur
95% of the universe is not atoms, though we're not exactly sure what the other 95% is except to say it's 68% dark energy and 27% dark matter which are not really understood.


What percent is plasma?


What a silly question most of the observable universe is plasma there called stars.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


So break it down. Add it up to 100% - with your dark matter included.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Mary Rose
Regarding the use of the fudge factor:




There twisting the science in your video badly probably to sell a book im guessing. First dark matter indeed has been observed but wait hows that possible you ask? Well we see the effect it has on light called gravitational lensing. Showing us indeed there is a mass outside of galaxies with no observable mass. Second he makes an assumption but doesnt tell you since there telling you of a prediction of the standard model on what elements should be produced. Guess what there are thousand of different predictions that use the standard model. Why well the standard model isnt meant to predict anything its simple a list of stuff that make up atoms. And this stuff is confirmed not from faeries but from scientists playing with instruments called colliders and tearing apart atoms and seeing whats in it.And ill address your other post as well about the aether where you aware physics isnt completely against the idea of an aether? That even Einstein postulated the existence of one.Problem is when you try to make it a plasma well the observable universe just doesnt agree with that observation because surprisingly we can tell through spectographs what visible light has passed through.And we know the interstellar medium isnt made of baryonic matter period we would see it.Hes trying to use Fermi Dirac statistics to show there is an equilibrium of energy but thats not exactly what its used for.The key to fermions is half spin this means it excludes bosons and bosons are force carriers so in other words hes trying to say the forces are created out of an aether that doesnt contain a single boson and well thats wrong again.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   

dragonridr
What a silly question most of the observable universe is plasma there called stars.
Stars may only account for about 10% of the baryonic matter, but much of the other known baryonic matter is plasma. Since we can't account for about half of baryonic matter, I don't think we can say most of it is plasma, though it could be...but without knowing what half of it is we can't say what most of it is.


Mary Rose
reply to post by dragonridr
 


So break it down. Add it up to 100% - with your dark matter included.
According to this pdf source, here's my interpretation which breaks down baryonic matter a little further:

Searching for baryonic matter in intergalactic space

Dark Energy: 72.4%
Dark Matter: 23%
Baryonic matter in stars/galaxies: 0.5%
Baryonic matter not in stars/galaxies, known: 1.8%
Baryonic matter not in stars/galaxies, unknown: 2.3%

So if these guys are right and they know more about it than me, I was off a little to say we don't know what 95% of the universe is, because with half of the baryonic matter unknown, one could make an argument that only 2.3% of the universe is known, meaning 97.7% is not known. They do expect to convert another 1% from the 2.3% unknown baryonic mater bring it down to 1.3%, but it's not going to be easy to find that 1.3% for reasons explained in that source, which is somewhat dated, so they could have found some more baryonic matter by now.

Regarding the plasma percentage question, I don't think we know how many MACHOs (Massive Compact Halo Objects) there are, of which I believe the Earth is an example, as well other planets like Mars which are non-plasma forms of baryonic matter. MACHOs could also explain some percentage of dark matter observations (though not all of it) even though it's baryonic matter. MACHOs with the mass of Earth and larger have been determined to not be too prevalent based on gravitational microlensing observations, but I don't think these have ruled out the abundance of smaller MACHOs which are harder to detect, the mass of Mars, the moon, or even asteroids.
edit on 24-10-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   
From "The Plasma Universe of Hannes Alfvén" by David Talbott, pages 5-10 of a 20 page .pdf file of EdgeScience:


In the 20th century no scientist added more to our knowledge of electromagnetism in space than Hannes Alfvén (1908–1995). His insights changed the picture of the universe, revealing the profound effects of charged particle movement at all scales of observation. But recognition never came quickly, and never easily, and mainstream journals typically regarded Alfvén as an outsider, often rejecting his submissions. In retrospect, Alfvén’s difficulties in gaining acceptance can only highlight the inertia of institutionalized ideas in the sciences, reminding us of the obstacles faced by all of history’s great scientific innovators. . . .



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
I never knew there were any myths that science was settled. Please, let me in on them. I mean, can you ever really prove anything 100%? In mathematics, you can postulate and work out a proof. In science, you theorize and attempt to disprove and measure your theory against all available data and test it by predicting new results. But, you never really prove it. Right?



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Galileo400
 


Right.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Dark Matter may simply be Matter in a "Shadow Universe"!

Mirror matter
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter
en.wikipedia.org...

Richard Feynman - The Character of Physical Law - Part4 Symmetry in Physical Law (full version)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ6o1cDxV7o
www.youtube.com...

 


reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Some good reads you are linking in this thread!



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by AbleEndangered
 


Thanks.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


That is the point you guys are missing. If true nothingness doesnt exist, then dont use the word nothing to describe something you are claiming exists. And I think true nothingness does exist, somewhere... In a vacuum of a space, in order to tell where fluctuations are, must there be area where fluctuations are not? Where there are not particles, radiation,energy, quantum fluctuations, what is there , what is that foundation? Or because there are 5 or more fields at every point in space at all times, does this mean that the entire universe is a compact or full isolated system, that has no nothing within it?

So yea Ive seen the videos about ideas of quantum jitter and stuff, so that idea is that (I will use a shag rug as an example of quantum jitter) the universe is composed of near infinite rugs stacked ontop of one another, with no space in between them, every dimension and most micro measurement is full of energy, quantity and quality, there is no plancks length of space in the universe ever that is not somethingness, that is not energy itself. If you are saying true nothing does not exist, this is what you are saying. If even for one pico second in the history of the universe, a planck length of space did not contain any energy or matter what so ever (I dont know about the field business, if all points in space truly contain a non zero energy field then yes, nothing does not and cannot exist in the universe) then it could be said truthfully that nothing is a possible phenomenon in reality.

The way I think nothing exists is beyond all that exists. If the universe, or multi verse, or multimultiverse, whatever exists, will be some 3dimensional entity if measuring its totality. Plus the 4th dimension of time. Point being the totality of stuff that exists will take up an exact area at any given time. Now does that mean infinite true nothingness exists in all directions surrounding the totality of stuff? Or is there a barrier, like a truman show wall at the extent of all stuff that exists, and beyond that barrier it is beyond nothing that exists, it is non anything non nothing, idk... The thing where these truths could come in play is how they interact with the stuff that exists, and if the stuff that exists exists on top/within an area of true nothingness (it boggles my mind how an area of nothingness could exist, let alone how any something could exist) or if there is no barrier does what is beyond the total stuff, have effect on the stuff itself.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Ok you seem to be under the assumption that the universe expands in to a void of some kind a true nothingness? Because thats not the way space works.Do to the expansion of the universe space is being created not expanding into something.I know people have a hard time with this but observing the universe tells us it isnt expanding. However between galaxies space is being created the further the galaxy from us the more space thats created between us. so the expansion of the universe isnt like a balloon blowing up. But more like raisin bread in an oven when it cooks the space between the raisins expand. The raisins arent moving but bread is expanding making it seem there moving away from one another. Just in the case of the universe its not heating but cooling of the universe causing this expansion.There is no outside the universe because you can never get outside the universe. If a universe is created it merely continues to expand new space created. There are several theories on the multiverse im not entirely sure will ever solve this one because the laws of physics are stacked against us.
edit on 10/24/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join