Is dark matter all it's cracked up to be?

Saiph · Mar 9, 2006

well....cause we can handle and investigate it. Plasmas are ionized gases, and have some different properties from other forms of matter that warrant their own classification. As it is composed of matter, the mass can be transformed into unbound energy (bound energy being "potential" energy). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Saiph · Mar 9, 2006

Not so intellectually dismissive. I did have to think about how matter as energy fits into the entire scheme, and I gave reasons why I don't think it can be classified as a state. The reason is: The energy bound in the mass of a hydrogen atom that is a solid is the same as in a liquid, or gas. The changes in energy in the system are stored in the "binding" energy between the atoms (the Electrical attractions between atoms). The mass in all those states is identicle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Mar 9, 2006

well....cause we can handle and investigate it. Plasmas are ionized gases, and have some different properties from other forms of matter that warrant their own classification. so your logic mandates that if we cannot "handle and investigate it" then it is disallowed to be anything more than what you must narrowly and myopically define it to be? right. As it is composed of matter, the mass can be transformed into unbound energy (bound energy being "potential" energy). ok. you're sorta kinda meeting me half-way <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> i see that. you can accept a "transformation" but not outright matter = energy literally. ok <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> i don't agree w/you, but i can accept it. you're not so far afield from what i'm saying, really. you seem a bit afraid to admit it.

bonzelite · Mar 9, 2006

The reason is: The energy bound in the mass of a hydrogen atom that is a solid is the same as in a liquid, or gas. The changes in energy in the system are stored in the "binding" energy between the atoms (the Electrical attractions between atoms). The mass in all those states is identicle. i follow this. but instead of this rote learning schtick, can't you just enjoy the idea that energy manifests in differing forms? be it liquid or gravitation? this is yet still beyond your grasp of acceptance? even as a possibility?

Saiph · Mar 9, 2006

rote learning? I'll accept applied but not rote. These aren't facts I've just memorized and accepted. Can I entertain the idea that energy manifests itself as different states of matter? Sure...but I don't see any evidence for that. I see a more useful concept of different phases comprising different amounts of internal energy (in the kinetic and binding energies of the atoms). <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />this is yet still beyond your grasp of acceptance<hr /></blockquote> You do realize that this implies (arrogantly btw) that you're correct in your statements and that I'm misguided? Part of having an open mind is to be objective of even your own ideas. Proposing such an unusual idea such as this, and just accepting it's truth, isn't very good critical thinking. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

cosmictalk · Mar 9, 2006

if we looked at space as a form of matter which is what I do <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> than could we not as well look at energy as a form of matter that is just completely different because of its own laws. It just seems that some scientist are throwing themselves off because they do not accept energy as matter or matter as space.

Saiph · Mar 9, 2006

...and where's the justification of thinking of space as matter? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

yevaud · Mar 9, 2006

He and I have already gone around the block on this one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

cosmictalk · Mar 9, 2006

(and where's the justification of thinking of space as matter?) Because it has motion! It has motion and is capable of holding so it has substance which means matter of some kind.

bonzelite · Mar 9, 2006

this is yet still beyond your grasp of acceptance You do realize that this implies (arrogantly btw) that you're correct in your statements and that I'm misguided? Part of having an open mind is to be objective of even your own ideas. Proposing such an unusual idea such as this, and just accepting it's truth, isn't very good critical thinking. we don't know what the truth is. i'm giving another take on matter and energy. and it appears clear that you are unaccepting of my idea. we've heard the accepted ideas before. and look where they get us: the accepted ideas get us with contradictory schools of thought that are rotely accepted as factual. like for gravity. so maybe gravity is actually an energy state, and this energy creates the galactic movements and rotations that are at odds with the flawed and incomplete official ideas of what gravity is. but we'd rather stick with those ideas because we see all kinds of "evidence" for their validity? there's all kinds of evidence for the big bang, but the contradictory story of how it exploded is valid, too? so we just move along and accept it as fact when really nobody really understands how the universe is structured or how it really functions. so a daisy-chain of more and more ridiculous theories are added upon other theories --enter "dark matter" and "dark energy." see what i mean? the invention of dark matter and energy is the death knell of cosmology as we know it. it is an admission of ignorance that masquerades as intelligence and innovation. it reveals the emperor wears no clothes and demonstrates an overriding denial that the very foundation is cracking. there is a difference between open-minded and openly stupid. dark matter and the like falls into the latter category of consideration. states of matter as energy manifestations, the former.

cosmictalk · Mar 10, 2006

(so maybe gravity is actually an energy state, and this energy creates the galactic movements and rotations that are at odds ) I felt it was a form of attraction! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Isn't anti-matter named wrong?

nova_explored · Mar 10, 2006

thanks for the clarification. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

cosmictalk · Mar 10, 2006

(i follow this. but instead of this rote learning schtick, can't you just enjoy the idea that energy manifests in differing forms? be it liquid or gravitation?) isn't all matter a force and a form of energy? Liquid and gravitation are in motion inner acting , working in essence!

Saiph · Mar 10, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />it appears clear that you are unaccepting of my idea.<hr /></blockquote> Am I entertaining your idea? Yes. Do I accept it? No. Why? You haven't really provided anything to support it. Saying "maybe it's a giant hub and spoke setup communicating instantly...." doesn't really substantiate anything. Meanwhile the ideas of newtonian and GR gravity have lots of material, examples, thought out logical reasoning, and substantiated predictions. Now, as for current "contradicting" theories...there are contradicting aspects, I'll agree. And those are areas of intense research, to investigate the source of the contradictions. Do cold dark matter models work perfectly? Nope. not at all, and people working on them will be the first to say that. Do they work at all? Yeah, they give some pretty decent results...just not for all cases. So it's a work in progress. These are physics problems so large it takes hundreds of people decades+ to get anywhere. Is dark-matter a preposterous idea? Not really, as we've observed particles that have similar properties, but they either a) decay really fast (unbound neutrons) or b) move way to fast (neutrinos). So all we're asking is one that doesn't move to fast, and sticks around. Dark energy...so far nobody likes it, and nobody knows what it is. People are looking into it in hopes that a) we figure out we don't need it and/or 2) figure out what it is. How is en explosive beginning to the BB contradicting? The entire theory is built upon that concept. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

cosmictalk · Mar 10, 2006

Electro Matter is on the small scale percent wise compare to dark matter Dark Energy is considered to be in text books the highest substance to be believe in existence. Dark Matter sounds alot like dark energy to me!

cosmictalk · Mar 10, 2006

how is the moon seen by radiation detection? that is what comes to my mind... p)

bonzelite · Mar 10, 2006

Why? You haven't really provided anything to support it. Saying "maybe it's a giant hub and spoke setup communicating instantly...." doesn't really substantiate anything. it is a premise. a concept. the spokes are not literally such. the wheel idea i speak of is conceptual. it is how galaxies rotate. like big wheels. not like solar systems whose planets orbit the primary star faster and faster the closer in they get. galaxies defy this precept and turn like wheels. and because of this, there is compelling reason to believe that the "gravity" is acting non-locally. as to the hows and whys, that is not known. Is dark-matter a preposterous idea? Not really, as we've observed particles that have similar properties, but they either a) decay really fast (unbound neutrons) or b) move way to fast (neutrinos). So all we're asking is one that doesn't move to fast, and sticks around. i agree, dark is matter is not preposterous. it is entirely stupid an idea and created to claw at thin ice, as an act of theoretical desperation. should we rule it out? i agree with you on the answer being "no," but the concept is barking up the wrong tree. Dark energy...so far nobody likes it, and nobody knows what it is. People are looking into it in hopes that a) we figure out we don't need it and/or 2) figure out what it is. agreed. yes. How is en explosive beginning to the BB contradicting? The entire theory is built upon that concept. d =m/v, where "oo" = infinity, and "n" = finite quantity, v = 0 oo = n/0 oo = indeterminant cannot be possible. oo = oo, not oo = indeterminant as well, as density is infinite in zero volume, the finite quantity, n, approaches infinity as all forces are undifferentiated and

Saiph · Mar 10, 2006

Your premise...needs more development. I can't really say anything about it other than: tell me more. If dark matter is an entirely stupid idea than why 1) do we find particles with similar properties to that required 2) have a very successful partical physics theory that requires their existence 3) accurately model a large amount of observations 4) outperform gravity altering theories (like MOND). You may disagree, that's fine. But you need to talk about why, and if you can talk about alternatives. I know, we all know, you don't like it. In general, I think we've hashed that out between the two of us. ack! The infinity arguement again! First, I've already tried to show you it doesn't work that way. Second, people with a better grasp of the math and theory behind it say it can be done, but it isn't even required to be in that state. Third, you're arguement also means that virtual particles can't exist, as they follow the same principle (but not the only) propsed creation mechanism as the BB, just on a much smaller scale. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Mar 10, 2006

at least we are on civil terms, Saiph. i like that much better <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> i have a deadline, but when i'm done i can continue the debate if you wish. the thing is, there's a big cosmic veil that we've barely pulled back. there's more to this story than either your or my side. i can guarantee you that, matey <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

cosmictalk · Mar 10, 2006

(ack! The infinity arguement again! ) infinity does not exist EXCEPT perhaps in CONSTANT change

bonzelite · Mar 11, 2006

yet in an infinite density state, change is not constant, but, conversely, stasis is constant. and if stasis is constant, there is no change over time, including movement, as there is zero volume of point space disallowing coordinates. and that creates another aspect of the stasis. so a finite quantity within this point-space, of infinite density, were it merely one particle, could not move. that's a way of looking at it <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

nova_explored · Mar 12, 2006

and if stasis is constant, putting forward a steady state theory, eventually all matter would be converted into energy (radiation and massless particles) that would eventually thin out so as not to have any interactive forces. Infinity at work. But everything did come together. Something took that infinite density state and created a finite structure. Just as sure as you and i are here talking. Steady state doesn't allow that. Physics doesn't allow that. Qm does. But yet we are here. It is the paradox. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bonzelite · Mar 12, 2006

to vary the theme, then, matter is already energy converted to states of matter, which is energy. matter is a physically dimensional manifestation of energy. this may include gravity, as that phenomena may very well be an inherent geometric trait of space, ie, another physically manifested state of energy. official definition does not recognize gravity as energy or energetic, as it is regarded as having no work function. gravity is presently regarded as a trait of mass only and having no distinct identity from that definition. when, in "reality," gravity may be an energy. it may be electromagnetically related. it may act non-locally, as it is seen to do in galactic rotation.

CalliArcale · Mar 12, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />how is the moon seen by radiation detection?<hr /></blockquote> Well, this is a little off-topic so if we want to go much further down this path we ought to do it in another thread, but the Moon reflects many frequencies of electromagnetic radiation, not just visible light. It also emits heat from its nightside (and reflects some heat from the dayside too, so the dayside will appear hotter than the nightside). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

nova_explored · Mar 13, 2006

right. and this preserves the law of 'conservation of energy'. Its just that, like every other theory of the origins of the universe, steady state also poses many problems in a complete explanation. Steady state requiring the cosmological constant poses a problem, namely, as matter converts to energy, we loose mass. Over time in an infinite density, it amounts to zero mass. Which poses the question- are we the first universe then? is there any alternative? Of course this doesn't explain background radiation. So its just, the further we delve, a question answered reveals a thousand more to pose. and there is that barrier for all theories of the universe that cannot penetrate. It seems, much like the planck length on quantum levels, we are not meant to know the ultimate secrets of the universe. Those two barriers, both on the quantum level and cosmological level may be of the same fruit, the same thing at work, and we can never know it. that may be the one trick up the sleeve. In Stephen Hawking's first book he talks about it eloquently. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Is dark matter all it's cracked up to be?

Saiph

Guest

Saiph

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Saiph

Guest

cosmictalk

Guest

Saiph

Guest

yevaud

Guest

cosmictalk

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

cosmictalk

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

cosmictalk

Guest

Saiph

Guest

cosmictalk

Guest

cosmictalk

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Saiph

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

cosmictalk

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page