theredbaron
Very Active Member
Ah, kinda like a laser highway going on. I getcha. Ok, I can see how that could be a way to explain it.
Sent from my H3123 using Tapatalk
Sent from my H3123 using Tapatalk
It's software this time!
- Thread starter EvilDragon
- Start date
Bosbeetle
Terminally lost
Like with a lot of other things dark matter comes about because of the theory and the experiment. And the discrepancy between both. Changing einsteins cosmological constant can make the universe static,constant or expanding (or in a oscilating state) we observe an expanding universe. And to get all know equations fitting we need more mass, it could be our equations just do not hold in the entire universe. Especially beyond the event horizons of black holes things get unkown. Dark matter could easily be not nessesary anymore with some unkown physics happening there.
Weve seen newton has some limiting cases, current physics seems to be also limited and might not hold bevond the event horizon, or in the very, very,very early universe.
Weve seen newton has some limiting cases, current physics seems to be also limited and might not hold bevond the event horizon, or in the very, very,very early universe.
Djoga'Ro
moonstruck
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2016
- Messages
- 2,504
As I understand it. current theories don't even try to make statements about anything beyond the event horizon. So nothing to falsefy there. ?
Wasnt time also relative???
From the Perspektive of a normal Person, 2 months are 61 days , but from the Perspektive of a Pyra Preeorderer, 2 months (tm) is everything between 2 days and 6 yeahrs
From the Perspektive of a normal Person, 2 months are 61 days , but from the Perspektive of a Pyra Preeorderer, 2 months (tm) is everything between 2 days and 6 yeahrs
Bosbeetle
Terminally lost
Well the predicted singularity (by current theory) lies beyond the event horizon, thus the current theory does say something about it. The current theory even predicts the event horizon.
Swordfish II
Advanced Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2015
- Messages
- 1,175
I thought I was the only one with that sporadic issue
Djoga'Ro
moonstruck
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2016
- Messages
- 2,504
And doesn't that mean that the domain of the function ends at the event horizon? That the theory used to predict the singularity is not complete there?
Bosbeetle
Terminally lost
It could be. But for now we predict physics beyond the event horizon to be the same as before it. It is just shielded from us and not connected by causality. Therfore indeed you are right that we cannot falsify it.
Post automatically merged:
I think grench time dilation lies more in the field of psychology though.
this is the dominant theory I'm challenging.
Djoga'Ro
moonstruck
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2016
- Messages
- 2,504
@Bosbeetle If falsification/"verification"/testing is utterly impossible, I wouldn't use words like prediction. 
ible
professional vim user
of course. X is QM, Y is nonlocal EPR effects. but let's let Z equal some classical, hidden variable theory of things.
if Z, then not Y.
Y
therefore, not Z.
you're not an expert on everything. Grench, too, has some weird ideas about physics (we had a discussion on time relativity where he was in the Newton, not Einstein camp - and thus wrong). also neutrinos are not an option currently for dark matter. armchair speculation is fun, but there are incredibly smart people thinking about these things...
λ the β-Redex Reducer
β-Redex Reducing Member
I know about modus tollens and it's validity, but I'm not sure what you're getting at with this.
I'm not a fan of just blindly following whatever "incredibly smart people" say. I take many things that are said to me without evidence with a grain of salt. So I'm neutral on a lot of things. Also, I'm not sure what you mean with "armchair speculation". How is that different from normal speculation?
ible
professional vim user
anything that explains EPR effects has to be at least as weird as QM, essentially. you can't think classically about these things anymore, since classical explanations predict a different result from what experiments show.
it requires a pipe, so one looks as pretentious as one sounds. if you want to go toe to toe with Einstein, Dirac, and Schroedinger, et al., you'll need a lot more schooling. get a degree, write some papers to show them who knows better, etc.
or, stop using the internet until you know how it works, among other things brought to us by science and trusting people smarter than ourselves...
Grench
Forum Addict!
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2008
- Messages
- 6,629
Agreed. But to jump from that statement to, "There must be some magical invisible undetectable fairy dust substance for which we have to take the presence of based on faith that we will call Dark Matter," isn't science anymore. I am in the camp that such exotic explanations are likely unnecessary. Far more likely, there is normal matter/mass in the universe that we're simply not seeing because it is not currently involved in a massive ongoing nuclear fireball (star).
When calculating the mass of the universe, there are several known bits.
We know the mass of stars.
We know the locations of and can get a pretty solid estimate of the mass of black holes
We know the -hot- portion of the IGM (Intergalactic Medium) - the part that emits X-rays and other radiation and can estimate the net mass/energy of that.
We know from observation that there must be more mass/energy in the universe than the above can account for.
Jumping from, "We know that there is mass unaccounted for" to "Exotic Fairy Dust (Dark Matter / Dark Energy) that we cannot see or detect is 95% of the mass/energy of the universe" is a cop out.
Much more likely, we have a higher density of high velocity neutrons and hydrogen in the Intergalactic Medium than previous guesstimates can account for.
The volume of the universe is estimated at 3.58*10^80 m^3.
The mass of observable 'ordinary matter', which translates to 'hot observable matter' is around 1.5*10^54 kg.
The 'missing mass/energy' that gets called "Dark Matter" is estimated at around 20 times the 'ordinary matter' - which would be around 3*10^55 kg.
The mass of a neutron is 1.67492749805×10−27 kg.
If the entirety of "Dark Matter" were replaced with neutrons, that would be 8.95*10^80 neutrons.
Spread those 8.95*10^80 neutrons evenly through the 3.58*10^80 m^3 of volume results in an average density of 2.5 -static- individual neutrons per cubic meter of space. The faster those neutrons are moving, the fewer of them would be needed to make the calculation work (energy).
So, which hypothesis is more likely to be true?
A. That we haven't got detection equipment necessary to spot an average additional density of 2.5 "cold" non-radiating neutrons per cubic meter of intergalactic space.
or
B. That there is this exotic fairy dust that we cannot see, classify or detect called "Dark Matter" that is the equivalent of 95% of the mass/energy of the universe.
Last edited:
λ the β-Redex Reducer
β-Redex Reducing Member
The Internet is not brought to us by trusting other people. We have actual evidence that the Internet exists i.e. the Internet itself which we have access to.
As for science, I believe science. But I need to hear the things to believe from science directly without middleman.
Bosbeetle
Terminally lost
There is no need to 'believe' in science you can check it for yourself. Also on the bleeding edge a lot of 'stuff' is just not settled yet.
On the other hand there is also no need to always distrust second hand accounts.
Off course on the internet you cannot see who you are dealing with, all I can do is reveil my sources, those are mainly books, Ive read quite a bit about these subjects the latest books are quite fresh on my mind (finished them last week), and are the road to reality by Roger penrose and a Dutch book by Roel andringa-boxum who recently got his phd on quantum gravity and won a national prize on his thesis.
And I myself have a phd in moleculair biology, so I know the workings of science. And published a handfull of articles together with physicist on the subject of super resolution microscopy. And the closest related to this subject was a paper on detecting Alpha particle trajectories in a crystal. (I have not been a first author on these papers though) I have published a couple of handsful of papers on biological subjects also there I have a some first author papers and one last author paper.
Just to break the anonimity a little bit...
On the other hand there is also no need to always distrust second hand accounts.
Off course on the internet you cannot see who you are dealing with, all I can do is reveil my sources, those are mainly books, Ive read quite a bit about these subjects the latest books are quite fresh on my mind (finished them last week), and are the road to reality by Roger penrose and a Dutch book by Roel andringa-boxum who recently got his phd on quantum gravity and won a national prize on his thesis.
And I myself have a phd in moleculair biology, so I know the workings of science. And published a handfull of articles together with physicist on the subject of super resolution microscopy. And the closest related to this subject was a paper on detecting Alpha particle trajectories in a crystal. (I have not been a first author on these papers though) I have published a couple of handsful of papers on biological subjects also there I have a some first author papers and one last author paper.
Just to break the anonimity a little bit...
Last edited:
Bosbeetle
Terminally lost
I think it is time for Dave Shah to confirm he has got his pyra to get this thread back on the rails
daveshah
Well-Known Member
Sadly, squarely back in the boring world of classical logistics, the Pyra is still sitting in a depot in Nürnberg so an arrival tomorrow as originally forecast seems unlikely (but not impossible as Fedex can suddenly move things quickly).
