Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 111
09-28-2011, 01:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atatassault View Post
And how is this different from what I said?You should read my post in its initial frame. Quoting me removes what I quoted, and the hyperbole remark applies to the other guy who said the EM force is infinitely greater than gravity.
My bad. I was in a hurry and your quotes got all mashed together into the clump you see in my response. Forgive me I stand corrected in my miss quote.

Consider my reply as added support to your response to Jesun.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 112
09-28-2011, 01:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atatassault View Post
They will, but you're thinking about the wrong way. Gravity is not a force, it is the curvature of space due to the presence of energy. Now, this space curvature may look like a force, but its not.
Misconeption, gravity is a property of matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by atatassault View Post
Misconception. The apparent energy of the galaxy does not produce enough gravity to hold the galaxy together, hence the postulation of unapparent energy (dark matter).Hyperbole is not warranted. The EM force is about 1.22 x 10^36 times stronger than gravity.
You really have this totally back to front, it's the failings in Einstein's theory that leaves 76% of the galaxy unaccounted for, not that the galaxy is hiding from us and not obeying Einstein as it should.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 113
09-28-2011, 01:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesun
Misconeption, gravity is a property of matter.
The Stress Energy Tensor begs to differ.
Quote:
You really have this totally back to front, it's the failings in Einstein's theory that leaves 76% of the galaxy unaccounted for, not that the galaxy is hiding from us and not obeying Einstein as it should.
Nope. As piwright42 said, the outermost stars in our galaxy are orbiting too fast for the apparent energy of the galaxy to keep them bound to the galaxy. Unapparent energy, dark matter, is the postulation to correct for the observations we have made. The reason why dark matter is called "dark" is because we can't see it. Within the framework of Relativity, we do not see enough matter and energy in our galaxy to keep its outermost stars gravitationally bound to it. To avoid changing the framework (which has been experimentally verified countless times), the current logical conclusion is that the galaxy contains matter and energy we can't see.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 114
09-28-2011, 02:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atatassault View Post
Unapparent energy, dark matter, is the postulation to correct for the observations we have made.
There is a nice writeup on the Dark side of the universe over here. I want to point out that Dark Matter isn't the same as Dark Energy, but they're used together to quantify what we don't know. I'm really uncomfortable with both. Hearing this attempt to describe the universe put several doubts in my mind concerning astronomical theories.... I'm very much sitting on the sidelines with this one until we get more data. I have a hard time changing my mind after "picking a team".
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 115
09-28-2011, 03:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atatassault View Post
The current logical conclusion is that the galaxy contains matter and energy we can't see.
I reject your logic and submit my own.

It is sad that because something does not fit into our neat little understanding of the Universe and it's mechanics, then it can not be true; such as FTL travel, or we create magical invisible matter and energy to account for things we don't understand. Scientists have been seeking the God particle to prove or disprove the existence of dark matter, and guess what!? They can't find it. Go figure. Everyone here seems so one sided about these scientific concepts. I understand the theories have been proven time and time again, but where were they proven? Right here on Earth, using instrumentation developed on Earth. I like to believe that there is things about the Universe that we don't know or understand, and that one day we will be able to travel to the stars. Not because I hope to be a person who does, but because I want mankind to exceed our mandate. I can not accept that we are the only living things in this galaxy of billions of stars and quadrillions of planets. I am a dreamer I guess you could say, but it is the dreamers who make change happen. People who question the notions people hold dear to in spite of the backlash. This is a star trek forum, I would think that fans of star trek would show a little optimism rather than just quote physics lectures and papers rejecting the impossible.

Don't discredit something based on what you know now. Prove that it is wrong if you disagree. There was a man once who speculated that the Earth orbited the Sun as opposed to everything orbiting Earth, and at the time, they accused him of being a heretic.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 116
09-28-2011, 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jericho791 View Post
or we create magical invisible matter and energy to account for things we don't understand.
Neutrinos don't interact with the EM field. Thus, we can't see them. Their existence allows for other matter that could be non interacting with the EM field.
Quote:
Scientists have been seeking the God particle to prove or disprove the existence of dark matter, and guess what!? They can't find it.
The Higgs Boson is expected to be a very heavy particle, which makes creating one very difficult. They are still looking for it, but the fact they haven't found it yet is not enough evidence to disprove its existence.
Quote:
I like to believe that there is things about the Universe that we don't know or understand, and that one day we will be able to travel to the stars.
Then you are not following the scientific method and are blatantly ignoring what is known to be true. The speed of light limit has been experimentally verified. It is highly unlikely that it can be broken because we have not observed the effects that would come about if it weren't a limit. Everything from electron orbitals to gravitational lensing depend on the c limit.
Quote:
Not because I hope to be a person who does, but because I want mankind to exceed our mandate.
We are a part and product of our universe. To think that because we exist, the Universe has to bend to our "manifest destiny" is a fallacy.
Quote:
I am a dreamer I guess you could say, but it is the dreamers who make change happen.
A lot of scientists do what they do merely because they find it cool and interesting. They have no agenda. Making antimatter? AWESOME! Cracking open Protons to see Quarks? AWESOME!
Quote:
Don't discredit something based on what you know now. Prove that it is wrong if you disagree. There was a man once who speculated that the Earth orbited the Sun as opposed to everything orbiting Earth, and at the time, they accused him of being a heretic.
To be fair, it was widely known before the Middle Ages that the Earth was round, and the Earth orbited the Sun. The Greeks had the latter wrong, and Religious leaders that came to leadership because of the power vacuum in the Middle Ages rewrote the known facts because it didn't serve their agenda.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 117
09-28-2011, 05:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atatassault View Post
A lot of scientists do what they do merely because they find it cool and interesting. They have no agenda. Making antimatter? AWESOME! Cracking open Protons to see Quarks? AWESOME!
A lot of other scientists want to add to the world knowledge pool as an intellectual form of manifest destiny....
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 118
09-28-2011, 10:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atatassault View Post
Actually, its less than that. You have to take in to account all the uncertainties of each particle of a macroscopic object, which will produce unfathomably small numbers really quick.
Ok, so my numbers were off. My point is though that the reason that we don't see quantum effects on macroscopic objects is that the effects are far smaller than we can see without molecular-scale measurement, rather than because macroscopic objects don't experience these quantum effects. There is no "magic" that makes quantum effects not happen to macroscopic objects--it's just that we have to look at them microscopically to be able to see them.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 119
09-29-2011, 04:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atatassault View Post
The Stress Energy Tensor begs to differ.
Misconception, abstract mathematical structure that has no bearing on reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by atatassault View Post
To avoid changing the framework (which has been experimentally verified countless times), the current logical conclusion is that the galaxy contains matter and energy we can't see.
Incredible, to avoid changing the frame work you want to force the universe to comply with the your prefered theory, it just doesn't work like that, well it might do for a mathematician in an abstract kind of way.

When i said EMF is infinitely more powerful than GF i meant it, GF (gravitational force) EMF (electromagnetic force). GF divided by EMF comes to almost zero, even if the universe carried on for an eternity GF will never be as powerful as EMF therefore EMF is infinitely more powerful than GF.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 120
09-29-2011, 05:05 AM
As an outsider to this thread and rather intrigued by this topic after I read the news article when it was published, I feel almost compelled to submit my rather insignificant theory to the mass of this thread

So, according to the researchers, they effectively fired neutrinos 760KM's in one particular direction, and for some reason they arrived 60nanoseconds quicker than equivilent light did. The test was repeated numerous times with the same result or thereabouts.

Whilst I have two ideas (and I apologise if they've been raised previously in the thread), the first thing that came to mind was the discovery a few years ago about neutrino's leaving the Sun and entering our atmosphere. it was discovered that for some, in certain parts of our atmosphere, they literally appear to be younger after they have gone through the atmosphere than when they left, in essence traveling back in time or bending time as we know it.

Thus, from where I'm standing there can only be 2 possibilities;
a) either when neutrino's reach a certain speed (possibly due to their mass) they effectively travel backwards in time to a certain degree, and there is no maximum speed, but light is still constant
b) gravity has less effect on the neutrino's, and thus the curvature of the earth was bypassed thus creating a shortcut for said neutrino's.

Also, with regards to the mentions earlier in the thread about the speed of light and "light years" having to be re-calculated, this isn't necessarily true, as we know the speed of light is constant this hasn't changed, the experiment has just showed that it may be possible for something to in theory at least travel faster than light without bending space like a wormhole and cheating,

But we shall see in the coming years, all very very interesting stuff
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:00 AM.