The Climate Change AND contentious science thread- vampires and dark matter

[-=SS=-]

adding misogyny to the list?

Just a bit of humor in to this thread. But in all honesty.. who are the bigger consumers? Men or women? Who makes the majority of purchases, and who is the majority of advertising aimed at?

 

[alasdairm]

well, how do you go about measuring that? what evidence can you point to which substantiates your claim?

alasdair

 

[Ninae]

I don't know, I've always thought about men as more materialistic. They're obsessed with cars and things from childhood, while girls are more maternal and social. And the drive to earn more is surely a competition between men mostly, there aren't too many business women.

Men just let women take care of the "gathering" for them as they're more concerned with earning and owning to have to show off. And if you think about it, shopping is a form of servant-work, along with other housework.

 

[Bagseed]

Did you consider that maybe the experiments are not proving what they claim to be? That perhaps the clocks are affected by motion, gravity, changing EM conditions as the plane passes around the Earth, cosmic rays, who the fuck knows what else.

The twin paradox is an interesting thought problem but that's all it is. Again it's metaphysics, not physics.

if it were due to random factors, how would you calculate it? lorentz transformation can predict the difference between the time in the accelerated and stationary reference frame pretty well. also, time is thought to be manipulated by gravity, since gravity is a kind of acceleration. gravity also shifts the wavelenght of electromagnetic radiation, if you shoot a lightbeam upwards, away from the center of gravity, it will appear redshifted, if you shoot it towards the earth, it's going to be blueshifted.

Even when I was really into science I always thought that twin paradox made no sense what so ever, and I still do not understand why people get sucked in by it given all the concessions and assertions made in how the "experiment" works. The idea that the one who travels away will be younger is just laughable.. which one is moving away? The one in the rocket, or the one on Earth? Earth is not some static object, and neither is the surrounding context. They both age at the same rate regardless of velocity.. as ones common sense would dictate. A 10 year old can see this "thought experiment" for what is.. bunch of (intentionally) confusing baloney designed to bedazzle and mystify the impressionable.

it's not strictly only about velocity, but the fact that the one is accelerated away from the other (and negatively accelerated back of course). and in my opinion, mathematics behind the concept is pretty sound, and necessary, in order to account for the fact that nothing can exceed the speed of light (in this particular case). and if you now say that it's not proven that the speed of light is a constant, no matter from where it is measured, I at a loss.

and of course is earth not a static object, but when comparing velocities, acceleration, you have to assume one of the two points to be at rest. speed is only measured relative to something at rest. the speed of your car is measured relative to the ground, but since the earth is rotating, the ground actually also moves. generally speaking you could say that your reference frame is the one at rest, and everything else is moving relative to you, but another observer will see you moving and thinks of themselves at rest. actually nobody is ever at rest, but only relative to each other. if two spacecrafts go along a line through space, with the same uniform velocity (velocity has also a component of direction, in contrast to speed), they are at rest with respect to each other.

Ninae: if you really believe that all men are obsessed with cars, you are plain wrong. imo, being materialistic or not has shit to do with gender. men might be more into technology on average because of how society influences developement (boys get lego, girls get dolls), but on the other hand, I know more women than men who obsess about their stupid fashion and makeup and accesories.

 

[-=SS=-]

well, how do you go about measuring that? what evidence can you point to which substantiates your claim?

It was a question, I don't know the answer to it.. not sure if the data exists in a compiled form anywhere.

 

[swilow]

Have I studied astrophysics and gained qualifications? No. I am a layman, though I was very good at all the sciences during school, and mathematics. It's more a case of common sense and intuition, recognizing when you're being had.

Unfortunately, intuition doesn't mean anything in scientific terms. Intuition makes it seem reasonable that the sun is actually orbiting earth; I mean, it certainly appears to given the visual evidence we see. From a shaky foundation as that, I'd question any conclusion regarding "being had".

Dark matter is clearly that. It if were not within the realm of science you'd have no trouble calling it out.. something which can't be tested for directly which just happens to balance out our magnificent equations that don't quite work? Come on, as I said to drugmentor.. you have to concede it is awfully convenient.

To the contrary, dark matter is extremely inconvenient, given the very real difficulty in testing for it.

In actual fact I think the opposite is true here. Everyone who is arguing against me here is invested heavily in the enterprise of science. See your "anti-science" comment is just that. I think science is great, but I'm not in love with it like you all are. I used to love science too, but then I realized it was largely comprised of people.

Yeah, and for all its failings, its the best system we have for acquiring objective knowledge. It is not the be-all, but it is certainly a very good start.

No, you're getting confused here. Space itself has no properties. How can it when it is an abstraction. Something which has no being has no properties. If there is anything occurring, such as the things you mention, then it is the result of other factors, not of space itself.

These other factors (which are occurring) appear to be occuring within something. Light and matter travels through something. Sure, this something may be largely empty, but it contains all sorts of things (including me and you). You're simply not making sense here.

Can and will. Just because it came out of the mouth of some expert doesn't mean it's true.

You seem to be just assuming that people are sheep, and that you are one of the few free thinkers. You've admitted that you are not an astrophysicist. From that I would speculate that you probably haven't run any physical experiments yourself. I'd have to conclude that you are also taking an "expert's" word for this. I think you've contradicted yourself massively here.

Pretty sure I mentioned just how powerful the EM force is in relation to gravity. The fusion is taking place where we see what we see.. in the atmosphere and the surface of the Sun, and not in the core.

What's happening in the core then to make it so much hotter then both the surface and the corona? Are you postulating that fusion is ocurring in both locations? I don't think the corona contains high enough pressure to intiate fusion, but I'm pretty sure it is not hot enough.

You said earlier that energy was coming 'into' the sun. You have not explained where from, or even tried to.

This has nothing to do with anti-science and that statement pisses me the fuck off. Conventional wisdom in science does not hold a monopoly on truth. It's amazing that for all the talk of how science moves forward and embraces new ideas, how actually in reality it is just as closed minded as any other belief system or enterprise.

Well, I apologise for pissing you off, I certainly did not intend to (though I didn't give your feelings much thought, I will admit- this is not personal for me). I just feel like there is a push towards denying science as an "authority" that idealists refuse to bow to. I appreciate that perspective and encourage people to think like you are, but when it begins to impact the real world, and not just their overworked keyboards, that's when I think it needs to be challenged.

You whipped out the anti-science line, revealing how you really think, so my discourse with you is now over.

In truth, I'm not trying to conceal how I think- not even slightly. I think you are spouting views that are bizarre and illogical. You are denying evidence compiled in numerous experiments which simply does not support either of your views on the universe and climate change. You are refusing to accept the scientific method as it has been used in these matters. In my opinion, that makes you anti-science.

 

[-=SS=-]

it's not strictly only about velocity, but the fact that the one is accelerated away from the other (and negatively accelerated back of course). and in my opinion, mathematics behind the concept is pretty sound, and necessary, in order to account for the fact that nothing can exceed the speed of light (in this particular case). and if you no say that it's not proven that the speed of light is a constant, no matter from where it is measured, I at a loss.

This is the crux of the whole issue we have.. far too much reliance on mathematics to explain how things work, divorced from actual reality. To be more accurate it is mathematics projected on to reality, as opposed to mathematics being used to explain what we actually observe. As I already stated I believe gravity acts instantaneously, or so fast as to be instant, and that I believe Einstein was wrong in his assertions. It's the main reason why plasma cosmology appealed to me in the first place.. because it actually deals with observed evidence and then tries to explain it, as opposed to maths first than observation second to validate the hypothesis. No thought experiments or metaphysical garbage.. just observations of phenomena occurring, and following explanations.

The whole thing makes my head spin.. there's so much nonsense in astrophysics it's amazing that anyone takes it seriously at all. Black holes, neutron stars that spin so fast they should fly apart, the big bang that is essentially just a new creation myth. When combined with Einstein's work it makes me realize just how much we don't know at all, and just how creative the human imagination really is.. and also the ability for people to believe things so illogical, and yet criticize others who follow religions or believe in deities etc. In conclusion, we know no where near as much as we believe.

 

[GodandLove]

Is it just me, or does it seem like everyone in this thread (including me) is ganging up on Silver Surfer(SS)?

We're all just taking turns pounding his ass into the mattress.:D Feels good to be part of a team. Just kidding

Nah but, were all just having fun.

 

[-=SS=-]

Is it just me, or does it seem like everyone in this thread (including me) is ganging up on Silver Surfer(SS)?

We're all just taking turns pounding his ass into the mattress.:D Feels good to be part of a team. Just kidding

Nah but, were all just having fun.

The whole thing amuses me just as much as I imagine you are amused. As was said earlier it's actually all of you who are invested/in love with science, not me One day, when you realize just how absurd things like the Big Bang actually are, you will laugh as I and many others do at just how ridiculous we were to ever have been sucked in by such a story. Then you will be where I am, poking at people who still subscribe to mythical scientific creations that are as equally absurd as any 'god' or religious item. Watching science lovers bash religion lovers is fantastic.. my ignorance is greater than yours! Take that!

 

[Foreigner]

On a side note, how do you feel about Halton Arp and his discovery that NGC 4319 galaxy is connected to a quasar with a significantly different redshift value? A simple observation that NASA tried to deny and obfuscate, and for which Arp was exiled from the astrophysics community? How does that fit into your narrative about the honesty and integrity of modern science?

This is really fascinating, thank you.

I agree with your observations about dogmatic science, in terms of thought experiences vs. actual observed phenomena.

 

[swilow]

The whole thing amuses me just as much as I imagine you are amused. As was said earlier it's actually all of you who are invested/in love with science, not me One day, when you realize just how absurd things like the Big Bang actually are, you will laugh as I and many others do at just how ridiculous we were to ever have been sucked in by such a story. Then you will be where I am, poking at people who still subscribe to mythical scientific creations that are as equally absurd as any 'god' or religious item. Watching science lovers bash religion lovers is fantastic.. my ignorance is greater than yours! Take that!

I dream of the day when my tinfoil hat fits me better too. Then we can laugh at our computer screens together.

I'm curious; are you saying you are a relgion lover, and that "we" science lovers are bashing you? Or are you generalising about people who post in this sub-forum and trying to get the last laugh?

 

[-=SS=-]

This is really fascinating, thank you.

I agree with your observations about dogmatic science, in terms of thought experiences vs. actual observed phenomena.

A short video about Halton Arp just after he died. Gives some good information.

 

[-=SS=-]

I'm curious; are you saying you are a relgion lover, and that "we" science lovers are bashing you? Or are you generalising about people who post in this sub-forum and trying to get the last laugh?

No I'm neither a religion lover or a science lover. Whilst I do still keep up to date on developments in science and spend far more time researching stuff there, I'm no longer invested in it as I once was.

 

[Bagseed]

This is the crux of the whole issue we have.. far too much reliance on mathematics to explain how things work, divorced from actual reality. To be more accurate it is mathematics projected on to reality, as opposed to mathematics being used to explain what we actually observe. As I already stated I believe gravity acts instantaneously, or so fast as to be instant, and that I believe Einstein was wrong in his assertions. It's the main reason why plasma cosmology appealed to me in the first place.. because it actually deals with observed evidence and then tries to explain it, as opposed to maths first than observation second to validate the hypothesis. No thought experiments or metaphysical garbage.. just observations of phenomena occurring, and following explanations.

The whole thing makes my head spin.. there's so much nonsense in astrophysics it's amazing that anyone takes it seriously at all. Black holes, neutron stars that spin so fast they should fly apart, the big bang that is essentially just a new creation myth. When combined with Einstein's work it makes me realize just how much we don't know at all, and just how creative the human imagination really is.. and also the ability for people to believe things so illogical, and yet criticize others who follow religions or believe in deities etc. In conclusion, we know no where near as much as we believe.

the theory of dark matter also takes observational fact (circular speed of solar systems within galaxies not getting slower with increased distance from the center of the galaxy), and tries to explain it. and I wonder how you would talk about such phenomena without mathematics? none of this is subject to our everyday experience, as somebody pointed out, just from everyday experience, the earth's surface would appear flat and the sun goes around it. and these theories have been first disproven by mathematics, and not by somebody going around the world.

the higgs boson also has been talked about for a while, but recently it has actually been found. do you suggest that scientists should just stop looking for dark matter, just because it's not obvious where it is to be found? instead you think it is best to completely abolish the current standard theories on cosmology and gravity, instead of modelling them to account for observations better? if general relativity is wrong, it will be disproven eventually, but as for now, there is little which makes more sense. and reintroducing the ether, which has been disproven to exist in the late 19th century is just ridiculous.

and if gravity acts with the speed of light (which kind of suggests that there is a massless particle involved, but I am by no means a physics expert, and I know that the graviton is purely hypothetical at the moment), then from a viewpoint of a human it is not really distunguishable from instantanously, same as if you turn on the light in your room, it seems to be everywhere at once, when it really is not.

and black holes have been found observationally as far as I am aware.

edit I'm just reading into plasma cosmology, and while it is interesting as another point of view, it also comes with a hell lot of assumptions. the biggest one being that the observational universe is just a pocket of mostly matter, so there must be another pocket of mostly antimatter beyond, how exactly do you say that this comes from any kind of observation?

In 1993, theoretical cosmologist Jim Peebles criticized Alfvén-Klein cosmology, writing that "there is no way that the results can be consistent with the isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation and X-ray backgrounds".[17] In his book he also showed that Alfvén's models do not predict Hubble's law, the abundance of light elements, or the existence of the cosmic microwave background. A further difficulty with the ambiplasma model is that matter–antimatter annihilation results in the production of high energy photons, which are not observed in the amounts predicted. While it is possible that the local "matter-dominated" cell is simply larger than the observable universe, this proposition does not lend itself to observational tests.

there seems to be a lot that the standard model can explain which plasma cosmology cannot. or is the CMB also fake?

 

[-=SS=-]

the theory of dark matter also takes observational fact (circular speed of solar systems within galaxies not getting slower with increased distance from the center of the galaxy), and tries to explain it. and I wonder how you would talk about such phenomena without mathematics? none of this is subject to our everyday experience, as somebody pointed out, just from everyday experience, the earth's surface would appear flat and the sun goes around it. and these theories have been first disproven by mathematics, and not by somebody going around the world.

Yes but you have to understand that we had the observations of solar system/galaxy movement and we found that using the formulas of the time that the answer we were getting was not congruent with the observations, so dark matter was invented to ensure that the equations continued to work and match observation. Dark matter was not proven or observed, just theorized to exist. It still hasn't been proven. All the 'proof' is taking existing observations and telling us that they fit and justify dark matters existence. There is nothing we can do to prove dark matter because it simply does not respond to being measured by the nature of its very being. Now, you're free to believe its real, but something which can't be proven or tested requires a leap of faith, and I've seen a better alternative so I refuse to invest in the idea.

the higgs boson also has been talked about for a while, but recently it has actually been found. do you suggest that scientists should just stop looking for dark matter, just because it's not obvious where it is to be found? instead you think it is best to completely abolish the current standard theories on cosmology and gravity, instead of modelling them to account for observations better? if general relativity is wrong, it will be disproven eventually, but as for now, there is little which makes more sense. and reintroducing the ether, which has been disproven to exist in the late 19th century is just ridiculous.

Well they say they found the Higgs and all the maths is kosher, but again there is a massive element of trust here. Only the guys with the multi-billion pound toy can prove its existence, and only the guys who excel in theoretical particle physics and related mathematics can ever truly understand all the calculations. For 99% of the population it all means nothing because we can't test, verify or conduct our own experiments. Again it's a massive leap of blind faith.

There has been more than enough evidence to at least warrant a proper investigation into alternative cosmologies now. You can't go more than a month or two without there being a press release saying something "baffles" or is "mysterious" in the astrophysics community.. time and again observations come back that just do not gel with our standard cosmology. Sooner or later we're going to get an astronomical event that just blows the whole standard cosmology to pieces anyway. I thought comet 67P and some of the other comets would be enough, but it's amazing how virulent the astrophysics establishment is at denying what we observe.. there's always some get out clause explanation. Plasma cosmology has made a number of successful predictions regarding comet behavior for which the standard model falls flat on its face.

As for the ether, one single experiment was the basis for nullifying that hypothesis. Even then there are doubts as to whether the result actually disproved the ether concept anyway. The ether still makes far more sense than Einsteins space-time concept when its all said and done. The whole wave-particle duality for light is total nonsense.. light has always been a wave not a particle, and when it is known that light is purely a wave then an ether becomes absolutely necessary as waves require a medium in which to propagate.

There is one scientist I trust on the matter of the ethers existence, and the kind of properties it has. Nikola Tesla was an experimenter, someone who actually did (copious) amounts of experimenting and fucking around with different primarily electrical apparatus. He also happened to be a fucking genius who practically invented the 20th century. If there is anyone I trust on the subject, it's him:

"Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena. My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest importance. As I have searched the entire scientific records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment"

Dismiss his words if you want, but this is a man who spent his entire life fucking with electricity and doing experiments. Einstein just sat in his chair and pondered.

and if gravity acts with the speed of light (which kind of suggests that there is a massless particle involved, but I am by no means a physics expert, and I know that the graviton is purely hypothetical at the moment), then from a viewpoint of a human it is not really distunguishable from instantanously, same as if you turn on the light in your room, it seems to be everywhere at once, when it really is not.

This is nonsense and is why particle physics of the 20th century is largely doomed to failure. There is no such thing as a mass-less particle. A particle with no mass has no being or substance. It is an illogical fallacy and shows that scientists have misconstrued evidence somewhere in our chain of physics development.

and black holes have been found observationally as far as I am aware.

Nope. Again like dark matter you can't actually observe blackholes. Their nature prevents it. All you can see is energetic disturbances in the vicinity of where we think there are black holes. That is not the same as observing a black hole. Both the energetic events and supposed gravitational lensing can be explained without resorting to infinite bodies of mass.. again, another illogical fantasy (infinites do not exist in nature).

edit I'm just reading into plasma cosmology, and while it is interesting as another point of view, it also comes with a hell lot of assumptions. the biggest one being that the observational universe is just a pocket of mostly matter, so there must be another pocket of mostly antimatter beyond, how exactly do you say that this comes from any kind of observation?

There is no requirement for antimatter. Alven was wrong about this.

there seems to be a lot that the standard model can explain which plasma cosmology cannot. or is the CMB also fake?

The CMB is real, but the mistake is assuming that it exists everywhere and that what we are detecting is not in fact just what we observe in our own galaxy/a product of the galactic environment in our vicinity, or even localized in our solar system.

 

[Foreigner]

^ They also tend to explain vacuum energy as a particle phenomenon, whereas the ether would make more sense. I mean which is more plausible: that unseen, undetectable particles constantly and randomly pop into existence and annihilate each other all over the entire universe so fast that we can't even see them, or that a medium like the ether is real?

I always found it to be BS that light is a particle and not a wave. It's made to fit relativity and the standard model, just like the idea that space has a curvature. Something that isn't there can't be curved.

There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment

I don't get this.

 

[Xorkoth]

The whole thing amuses me just as much as I imagine you are amused. As was said earlier it's actually all of you who are invested/in love with science, not me One day, when you realize just how absurd things like the Big Bang actually are, you will laugh as I and many others do at just how ridiculous we were to ever have been sucked in by such a story. Then you will be where I am, poking at people who still subscribe to mythical scientific creations that are as equally absurd as any 'god' or religious item. Watching science lovers bash religion lovers is fantastic.. my ignorance is greater than yours! Take that!

I agree with you that there is a lot of dogma in science, and also that it's entirely likely that much, or even the majority, of what we think we know about quantum physics is wrong. Of course I also think that as we explore more, we will get closer to the truth. It's pretty new science... new science is always prone to error. That doesn't mean we should throw out the scientific method or disregard everything that's been "learned". Plenty of scientific advances have led to real, repeatable things that we use all the time, that wouldn't exist without the accumulated work done by many scientists over time, as they refine the knowledge and technology.

But as far as I can tell it's not even truly debatable anymore that we are accelerating climate change. Your "CO2 is only 0.4% of the atmosphere" is a flawed argument, because the atmosphere is a complex and precise system. We have measured slightly higher levels (like 0.6%) of CO2 in the atmosphere (via rock/ice cores, etc) during periods of time that were much warmer. It's a potent greenhouse gas, a small amount goes a very long way. Also, if it's a scam, why is it that until recently the powers that be were almost exclusively trying to deny its existence? If it was a power grab, wouldn't they have been trying to convince us it's real?

 

[Foreigner]

^ Because until recently the fossil fuel tap seemed like a limitless source of profit, and that profit incentivized suppression of information. The world demand for oil increases by millions of barrels weekly and we increasingly have to excavate more and more remote regions to get at it, especially now that China is developing so rapidly. We will always rely on these fuels to some extent for the immediate future, but the writing is on the wall. One thing the recent Paris climate summit did, on an economic level, was spur a lot more investment in the green energy sector, as well as nuclear. The stocks shifted noticeably after the talks because more governments endorsed a shift away from oil and coal, with a commitment to maintaining the 1.5-2 degree margin. It's not like humans have actual control over meeting that degree point anymore, but what the commitment does is shift the financial markets, which is the entire point. Climate control, if it's even doable, will not be done by government policy. It will be driven by economic incentives. That's how humans operate. If there's no profit in it, it doesn't happen.

The reality is that there's no stopping the warming now. The cascade reaction is already happening. Once Russia's permafrost melts and releases all the stored methane there, we are doomed. People are assuming that CO2 is the only thing we have to keep an eye on, but that's all based on the known facts. There's also the unknown facts, which are the unknown secondary processes triggered by CO2 increase. The Russian permafrost is just one example of something that we do know about. Those huge craters that are appearing in Russia? The only explanation that remotely fits is methane release from the ground. It's already happening. There are props working overtime to claim that it can't possibly be about methane, but the initial reports that came out before the information controls came into place were that it was Methane. Methane is a way, way more insulating greenhouse gas than CO2. Halting global warming at 2 degrees is a pipe dream anyway, but especially if that methane comes out of the ground.

 

[-=SS=-]

^ They also tend to explain vacuum energy as a particle phenomenon, whereas the ether would make more sense. I mean which is more plausible: that unseen, undetectable particles constantly and randomly pop into existence and annihilate each other all over the entire universe so fast that we can't even see them, or that a medium like the ether is real?

I always found it to be BS that light is a particle and not a wave. It's made to fit relativity and the standard model, just like the idea that space has a curvature. Something that isn't there can't be curved.

The idea of particles is erroneous in itself. It's a useful concept to help us visualize, but that's all it is. Little spheres don't actually exist. It makes so much more sense to consider particles as wave functions/standing waves/potentials, not as point like entities. The problem we have is that these 'particles' have mass, spin and properties we measure.. but what if these terms themselves are confusing the issue? What is 'mass' exactly? Perhaps mass or spin are not how we conceptualize them to be because we've built an entire paradigm that leads us to consider things in a certain way.

The ether was abandoned too prematurely. Something so essential, yet to predict its properties in advance without doing proper experimentation first. Total folly! Instead we've favored ever more complex and bombastic particle physics, requiring more and more particles to make things work. What ever happened to Occams Razor. One ether, pervading all space, responsible for the arising of all forces and measurable effects.

I'm glad you picked up on the nonsense of trying to curve something that isn't really a thing, that has no substance. Nikola Tesla said exactly the same thing. It's almost painfully obvious, but the grandeur of Einstein has completely snowed people. Space has no properties, it's just an abstraction. An ether on the other hand.. is something rarefied, but tangible.. it has substance.

I don't get this.

I'd love to know exactly what he meant here. One interpretation I have is that all matter, being standing waves, is composed or maintained by the wave fronts of all other wave fronts (matter).. some sort of self-sustaining and motivated system.

 

[Bagseed]

okay, saying that wave-particle duality is nonsense does it. have you ever studied quantum mechanics or something like that in university? basically all we know about spectroscopy would make no sense without it. you simply cannot explain how photons interact with atoms, without seeing them as particles, but the movment of EM radiation through space can only really be explained as a wave. and if you don't see electrons as waves as well, you cannot explain anything. if an electron was simply a particle, it would eventually crash into the nucleus and annihilate.

I'm out, this is just ridiculous.