Bosbeetle
Terminally lost
the intergalactic medium
Computer says no.
the intergalactic medium
Dictionaries seem to be pretty clear about it: "To accept as true or real." "To credit with veracity." "To expect or suppose; think."And to your first question instead of beleive I would use the word "know" or maybe "acknoledge" or "accept". Just a bit less fuzzy and religious than beleive.
Agreed that neutrons are not, "Dark Matter". However, they are 'normal matter' that is -very- hard to detect at low densities at great distances. If they were standing still, enough neutrons to make up the "missing mass/energy" of the universe, they would only need to have a density of 2.5 neutrons per cubic meter of the universe. 2.5 neutrons per cubic meter is the -maximum- density to fulfill the "missing mass/energy". They are likely not standing still, but would likely be whipping around at velocities ranging up to near the speed of light. The faster the average neutron velocity (energy), the fewer actual neutrons are required for this possible solution.
We have no ability to directly detect "Dark Matter".
We have no ability to directly detect 1.5 - 2.5 neutrons per cubic meter densities of neutrons in the intergalactic medium either.
Issue: "There is a whole lot of mass/energy in the universe that we cannot detect."
Assuming that there is a magic fairy dust and magical energies coursing about, "Dark Matter / Dark Energy" instead of assuming that maybe our measurement capabilities for normal matter might not be adequate (yet) to get a full tally of normal matter / normal energy seems a bit of a stretch.
I am not saying, "This is the way it is." I am proposing an alternate solution model, hypothesis, that fulfills the scenario presented. We do not, to my knowledge, have any current technological means to test either the, "Dark Mater / Dark Energy" hypothesis or my "Presence of Neutrons at Low Densities in Intergalactic Space" hypothesis.
Probably, considering the fact that there are many different forums talking about iPhones. However, 100% of all Pyra forums talk about physics, the percentage of all iPhone forums that talk about physics may be lower.I wonder if there would be such a Deep Physical Discussion on a Board for a diverent Gaming Handheld or an Iphone..
No, the relevant fields are computer science and electronics. Theoretical physics is for boring nerds; computer science is for cool studs like me.Could it be that i am not educated enough for the Pyra ?? Altough i also read the Comon Sience Magazines, , whe have this "PM" Magazin in Germany,
Don't forget the mechanical side too, a Pyra without a case would be a pretty useless device (but also the kind of thing that electronic/software types like me are liable to make...)No, the relevant fields are computer science and electronics. Theoretical physics is for boring nerds; computer science is for cool studs like me.
Indeed. As Terry Prachett wrote 'I don't believe in chairs', because the way to conceive of and to use chairs is physically evident; whether you believe in them or not they're still there. It's a matter of language, and the boundary between 'I support the assertion that...' and 'I believe that...' and 'It is true that...' isn't always the clearest.It might also be a language thing beleving (at least if I use the dutch translation) is a bit to void of falsification and also seems to imply a not changing view of things. No need to check truthfullness if you beleive in it. Also I think beleiving in science as a method might be okay but beleiving in science as a whole is to much, like I said before when you're dealing with the bleeding edge of science it's very healthy to take things with a grain of salt and don't discard any hole in the theory you can think of. And discuss or think of ways to unmask or remove that hole. But I might be to much working inside of science to percieve an outsiders look on it.
one possible flaw - dark matter is in our galaxy, too. super speed neutrons ripping through us near the speed of light would not be so good for us. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_radiation
also that article mentions something i forgot -- free neutrons are unstable, they decay into protons and electrons. so that's another strike.
That way of defining belief makes the epistemological notion of knowledge as justified true belief an oxymoron.Indeed. As Terry Prachett wrote 'I don't believe in chairs', because the way to conceive of and to use chairs is physically evident; whether you believe in them or not they're still there. It's a matter of language, and the boundary between 'I support the assertion that...' and 'I believe that...' and 'It is true that...' isn't always the clearest.
The next, and probably better, fit to this would be highly diffuse hydrogen. Which has near enough the same mass as a neutron. Which would still be undetectable by today's means at a density of <= 2.5 atoms of Hydrogen per cubic meter of intergalactic space.
When disturbed by galaxies in motion, that disperse, cold Hydrogen would get excited and show up as:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warm–hot_intergalactic_medium
scientists also know about interstellar hydrogen, so they've probably already ruled this out. here is some caltech consolidation of other research which says that HI (interstellar hydrogen) still wouldn't be enough to explain the curves.
Well, the Pyra is still in Nürnberg yet Fedex are still claiming it will be delivered today...
Whilst one visualises specially charted jets and motorcycle couriers waiting on the runway, this also seems unlikely. I suspect it will now be delivered Wednesday at the earliest.
Justified in this case means that it is backed up by evidence. Justified true belief is not an oxymoron, it's just the epistemological stance that knowledge are beliefs that are true and backed by proof or evidence.Well yes. As soon as something becomes true (I'm not sure what you mean by 'justified' there, unless it's a common english idiom), you no longer have to believe in it. Very little stuff in science actually becomes true, rather than extremely highly probable, so it's rarely a problem in practice.
So far, though, we are only able to see and account for the 'stuff' between galaxies -if- it is warm enough to radiate. It gets warm enough to radiate if/when a galaxy passes through it. But - we cannot say if or how much matter there is in the cold stretches between the galaxies. There is a lot of conjecture of how much mass there is - but a lot of assumption that there is mass there. All it would take is 2.5 cold Hydrogen atoms, essentially individual atomic Bose-Einstein condensates, per cubic meter within the visible universe - which would be completely undetectable using today's telescopes to make "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" fall out of the equation.
I am probably the least educated person here. I could at best be described as a handyman. I spent the half day changing outs from cream to white, and the other half instally drywall. If I can use a Prya, I am pretty sure you can.Could it be that i am not educated enough for the Pyra ??