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

[swilow]

SS, I correctly attributed a few quotations in your posts; you were crediting the wrong user. Hope thats cool; its a pet peeve of mine.

And you're 100% certain the Sun operates in the way that you were taught in school? The amount of bafflement and mystery that still surrounds numerous aspects of astrophysics, not least with our Sun, means the debate on many issues is far from settled. For example, recent discoveries of exo-planets and other solar systems containing planets that are in orbits and of sizes that are not congruent with current understanding about solar system formation. They've had to re-examine long held assumptions about it.. though still refusing to go back to the drawing board completely.

Simply because a theory is being revised does not mean one should 'return to the drawing board'. It is simply a sign that science is working as it should. Very few scientists would claim they have the universe (or even the solar system) figured out entirely and most are willing to tweak their hypotheses. For the first time in the history of our planet (probably our solar system) has a lifeform had a close-to-true idea of what the universe is, and what our place within it is. There is no need to discard this knoweledge simply because it is incomplete. As a theory, gravity is vitrually excluded form every cosmic model. That does not mean that gravity is a bad idea.

There are so many problems and issues in the cosmological model. So many. To say an alternative hypothesis is laughable shows your ignorance of the topic area.

Given the fact that nuclear fusion is occurring within the sun itself, does it not seem more likely that this is the source of energy and heat, rather then an unknown and mysterious mechanism somehow generating huge amounts of energy and somehow transporting it to the sun, for the sun to then out-put it across the solar system?

Again, simply because something is partially unknown, does not negate the fact of what is known. Earths atmosphere accrete's substances like oxygen, carbon, methane. The sun has an atmsophere. Perhaps the atmosphere functions to accrete heat; it does so on earth. It is troubling that the 2nd law is apparently transgressed in the context of stars/the sun, but I think the truth is that we simply don't understand all the implications of physics yet. Who knows? Not I, not you I suppose. I could mention your own evident ignorance but I won't. Hang on, I did.

I am pleased that the entirety of the physical universe is far, far, far from known. I think at this stage, the gloves are off- no idea should be seen as too outlandish. Its way more interesting that way...

 

[alasdairm]

but those huge corporations who are denying climate change have nothing to gain so why wouldn't they be telling the truth?

nevermind

alasdair

 

[Kittycat5]

New data shows the warming hiatus is wrong.

http://m.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469.full

 

[-=SS=-]

SS, I correctly attributed a few quotations in your posts; you were crediting the wrong user. Hope thats cool; its a pet peeve of mine.

Apologies. Never worked out how to quote more than one post within your own post, without copying and pasting and then adding the tags manually.

Simply because a theory is being revised does not mean one should 'return to the drawing board'. It is simply a sign that science is working as it should. Very few scientists would claim they have the universe (or even the solar system) figured out entirely and most are willing to tweak their hypotheses. For the first time in the history of our planet (probably our solar system) has a lifeform had a close-to-true idea of what the universe is, and what our place within it is. There is no need to discard this knoweledge simply because it is incomplete. As a theory, gravity is vitrually excluded form every cosmic model. That does not mean that gravity is a bad idea.

The problem is that issues/observations are frequently highlighted and then theory is tweaked to accommodate the issues/observations that were made, rather than acknowledge the possibility that there may be a serious flaw way back in the chain of understanding we've developed. Dark matter is a great example of this, where the calculations simply do not add up correctly and in order to remedy the issue a new concept is created in order to balance the maths, as opposed to thinking "Hmmm.. maybe we made an error in the past somewhere?". When it happens again and again then it suggests there are fundamental errors.

Gravity is central to the cosmological model, not sure what you're getting at there. Without it we don't have blackholes, which then explains the high energy we have at galactic centres, for example.

Also, gravity is a bad idea as it currently stands. We still don't know what the hell it is and how it works. According to Einstein and relativity it operates at the speed of light, which is so absurd it begs belief but yet many people still believe it to be true! If gravity weren't instantaneous then the planets would not hold together in the orbits that they do. If the experts can't agree on this, something which is so fundamental to cosmology, then what does that say really. Gravity is just a descriptive word we use because no one has actually proven what the hell it is!

Given the fact that nuclear fusion is occurring within the sun itself, does it not seem more likely that this is the source of energy and heat, rather then an unknown and mysterious mechanism somehow generating huge amounts of energy and somehow transporting it to the sun, for the sun to then out-put it across the solar system?

You're assuming it/saying it's a given fact. Have you seen inside the Sun? Has anyone?.. Nope. It's all based upon modelling and assumptions about the composition of stars and evolution of bodies in space. It's all very convincing and weaves a nice tapestry, but that is not the same thing as proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. You're quite reasonable to trust the experts, however I'm not sold on the conventional model. No one has actually proven or observed anything except the outer layer of the Sun, because that's all we can see directly. Studying wave composition or neutrinos is not a direct observation and only gives an answer when plugged through modelling, which is not the same as observation.

The plasma cosmology model proposes that we are seeing energy coming in externally, electrical energy, and it is being expressed in the atmosphere/surface layer of the Sun first as highly energetic plasma.

Again, simply because something is partially unknown, does not negate the fact of what is known. Earths atmosphere accrete's substances like oxygen, carbon, methane. The sun has an atmsophere. Perhaps the atmosphere functions to accrete heat; it does so on earth. It is troubling that the 2nd law is apparently transgressed in the context of stars/the sun, but I think the truth is that we simply don't understand all the implications of physics yet. Who knows? Not I, not you I suppose. I could mention your own evident ignorance but I won't. Hang on, I did.

Yeh but you see the problem of what "is known" is not as undeniable as you believe it is. The Sun problem highlighted already demonstrates that.. we don't know what is inside the Sun.. we believe we know based on modelling and theory, but not from direct observation or measurement. Another great example is red-shift and the work of Halton Arp, who's observational data contradicted the notion that red-shift can be used to calculate distance in space. We've built a convincing overall model/tapestry, but convincing is not the same as knowing.. and we don't really know that much when you honestly and genuinely examine the trail of evidence and development of the sciences. It's assumption built on assumption in a lot of cases.

I'm willing to bet that within my lifetime Einsteins relativity will be disregarded and the concept of the ether as a medium will be re-introduced. The evidence all points to electricity being the critical and unifying force that shapes the Universe. I'm also willing to bet that gravity will finally be cracked when electricity is fully understood in its proper cosmological context.

“The long and constant persuasion that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent, having one common origin, or rather being different manifestations of one fundamental power, has often made me think on the possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection between gravity and electricity …no terms could exaggerate the value of the relation they would establish.” - Michael Farady, 1850

“The day when we shall know exactly what “electricity” is, will chronicle an event probably greater, more important than any other recorded in the history of the human race. - Nikola Tesla, 1893

 

[swilow]

Hmm, all very good points to be honest SS.

Gravity is central to the cosmological model, not sure what you're getting at there. Without it we don't have blackholes, which then explains the high energy we have at galactic centres, for example

I was saying that gravity does not mathematically fit into most comsmological models (its value can become infinite quickly), besides some string-theory variants. But this doesn't mean that the theory of gravity is incorrect; just incomplete.

But I do agree, there appears to be some fundamental misunderstanding of the universe that is preventing science from getting the 'correct' answer in its models. Of course, this is early days in our discovery.

You're assuming it/saying it's a given fact. Have you seen inside the Sun? Has anyone?.. Nope. It's all based upon modelling and assumptions about the composition of stars and evolution of bodies in space. It's all very convincing and weaves a nice tapestry, but that is not the same thing as proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It is a physical impossibility to see inside the sun. It will never happen, because the sun is incredibly hot. Heat is energy; its a fair assumption to say that this energy is manufactured within the sun (whether it is or isn't, you must concede that it could be). It is highly likely; as you say, not the same as 100% certainty.

If the lack of direct observation is enough to degrade a theory, then we must drop nearly everything we hold to be true about nature. We cannot observe atoms, we cannot see magnetic fields or explicitly sense them, but their influence suggests their reality. Humans have th ability to see trails of consequence, without directly observing them in realtime.

The plasma cosmology model proposes that we are seeing energy coming in externally, electrical energy, and it is being expressed in the atmosphere/surface layer of the Sun first as highly energetic plasma.

Very interesting. What is the source of this electrical energy? How does it travel? Like dark matter, to resolve this you need to introduce other unproven elements; you have to invent a source of energy and (re)invent the ether. However, the idea that the sun creates this energy through fusion of hydrogen and expels it to travel at lightspeed largely uninhibited through vacuum ties up those issues. The source is fusing hydrogen; the means of transport is the pressure ways created by fusion. Sure, this idea could be totally incorrect but it does have some evidence to support it and it is reasonable.

There are distinct limits to our knowledge. As I said, it is early days in the realm of science. I feel wary of the idea that our lack of concrete knowledge should make us hesitant to act in the matter of climate change. This could all be inevitable; earth might be heating up by some other means and we have no say in it; but, is it not wise to hedge your bets? What do we have to lose by reigning in our primitive use of fossil fuel? If we are right and our actions are contributing to global warming (which I wholeheartedly believe) then we have way more to gain by seeking other sources of enrgy. We may be wrong, but if we are not, nothing will remain. I am very much against apocalyptic thinking, but I am a distinct devotee of logic and cause-and-effect.

 

[GodandLove]

Shame its nothing but hot air though. Total scam.

Hey SS buddy, if Global Microwaving is a scam, what exactly do the scammers have to gain?

Alsaladair made an interesting point, he noted that there are some powerful corporations out there that have an incentive to keep fossil fuel around for as long as they can.

So SS, what do these 'scammers' have to gain from weaning the human species off of fossil fuel? I keep hearing that Global Furnacing is a scam, but no one has ever mentioned why it's a scam. What do these scammers have to gain?

 

[Kittycat5]

I don't understand why you think dark matter is simply a mathematical construct. This is how science works. Some unexplainable data is seen, and a theory is proposed to explain it and then tested. Besides the known fact that stars distant from the galactic center spin too fast, data from the Bullet cluster shows some of the most compelling evidence for dark matter. Is it perfect? Absolutely not, but to throw away GR and reintroduce the ether is simply not going to happen. There are competing theories to dark matter, with observational evidence, but they too are lacking.

And saying we don't know how gravity works is just foolish. Both Newtonian and GR tell us exactly how to measure gravity, GR tells us the warping of spacetime is gravity, and both have been experimentally verified probably more than any other physical theory, save QM. We do not have a quantum theory of gravity, but it is well understood how gravity works on large scales. And measurements from binary pulsars do seem to confirm that gravity propagates at the speed of light. Current gravity wave experiments should better confirm this.

 

[iridescentblack]

I actually got a bit anxious when I saw this thread... like, "What the hell happened?!"

As for my vampire comment, I meant that to be more funny than serious but on a more serious note, it's long been kind of a theory of mine that when a vampire decides to burn in the sun - his/her energy goes into the sun. This makes me think also "is it possible that we gather even just a small amount of our energy from a source further away than the sun?" What does this have to do with climate change?

Suppose energy could be lifted from other planets or stars in the galaxy or universe... With that said, the amount of humans on this planet is an ever-increasing number. Perhaps our own solar system is being throttled; maybe we need to pull energy from elsewhere to keep our own solar ecosystem in check. Or maybe I'm just mad.

 

[swilow]

^Use of nuclear power on earth utilises elements born very far from earth. Not that nuclear power is a great response to climate change...

As for my vampire comment, I meant that to be more funny than serious but on a more serious note, it's long been kind of a theory of mine that when a vampire decides to burn in the sun - his/her energy goes into the sun. This makes me think also "is it possible that we gather even just a small amount of our energy from a source further away than the sun?" What does this have to do with climate change?

I kinda thought you were joking.

And saying we don't know how gravity works is just foolish. Both Newtonian and GR tell us exactly how to measure gravity, GR tells us the warping of spacetime is gravity, and both have been experimentally verified probably more than any other physical theory, save QM. We do not have a quantum theory of gravity, but it is well understood how gravity works on large scales. And measurements from binary pulsars do seem to confirm that gravity propagates at the speed of light. Current gravity wave experiments should better confirm this.

True. But there is a vast difference between knowing how something works as opposed to knowing what that something actually is. We can only really detect gravity via inference or seeing its effects. AFAIK, there has been no discovery of a graviton or any physical particle associated with gravity, making it quite different to the other 3 fundamental forces and much harder to study.

Its interesting that you say that it travels at the speed of light. That makes me think its probably a function of the electro-magnetic force. That ties in with what SS is saying I spose...

 

[Kittycat5]

^Use of nuclear power on earth utilises elements born very far from earth.

This also tells us something about what is in stars. It is pretty well established that elements up to iron are fused in stars with heavier ones coming from supernovae.

 

[-=SS=-]

I don't understand why you think dark matter is simply a mathematical construct. This is how science works. Some unexplainable data is seen, and a theory is proposed to explain it and then tested. Besides the known fact that stars distant from the galactic center spin too fast, data from the Bullet cluster shows some of the most compelling evidence for dark matter. Is it perfect? Absolutely not, but to throw away GR and reintroduce the ether is simply not going to happen. There are competing theories to dark matter, with observational evidence, but they too are lacking.

Of course it's a mathematical construct! When the experts realized that there wasn't enough mass from conventional matter in the universe to explain why the Universe is ordered as it is they had to invent dark matter.. otherwise the equations used originally would have to be re-examined for errors. So what did they do? They invented dark matter rather than concede maybe that Einsteins relativistic gravity is just plain wrong. I mean seriously.. matter that can not actually be observed that just happens to balance out mathematical equations? Are you really that naive? They invented something that can not be directly tested for.. it's called bullshit.

And saying we don't know how gravity works is just foolish. Both Newtonian and GR tell us exactly how to measure gravity, GR tells us the warping of spacetime is gravity, and both have been experimentally verified probably more than any other physical theory, save QM. We do not have a quantum theory of gravity, but it is well understood how gravity works on large scales. And measurements from binary pulsars do seem to confirm that gravity propagates at the speed of light. Current gravity wave experiments should better confirm this.

No, we don't know how gravity works because we don't what it is. That is the actual truth of where we are.. no one knows what gravity is or how it really works. It's all theory without demonstrable proof. Einsteins GR appears to give a best fit for gravity, but that's all it is. It's not a match, just a best fit. Measuring the affects of gravity is not the same as knowing what it is or how it works in its entirety.

Einsteins space-time is just flat out nonsense. Again it is mathematical posturing in an attempt to convey legitimacy, as opposed to actual physics. It's more metaphysics than physics. Why is it bullshit? Two simple reasons. First, space has no properties.. space is an abstraction, it does not actually exist. Something with no properties can not have a force exerted on it and exert a force in return on anything else. Second, time is not a dimension. That is just an absurdity in itself. The audacity of people claiming that "you can't visualize it" just shows what nonsense it actually is.. "oh, think of the flatland example.. 3D people can't perceive the 4th dimension". Again, like dark matter, how, fucking, convenient. And again, it's called bullshit. Just because its taught and the majority believe it doesn't mean it's actually true. Consensus bias is all it is.

Einstein's GR tells us that gravity can not exceed light speed, as nothing can. This is just a plain absurdity. Gravity is clearly instantaneous, as Newton suggested. In fact it is many orders of magnitude faster than light. It has to be, otherwise the planets would not hold the orbits they do around the Sun without flying off into space.. the Earth has to know where the Sun is now and react to that, not where the Sun appears to be in the sky according to light than takes 8 minutes to reach Earth. GR attempts to plug this problem with space-time, but it's nonsense.

This also tells us something about what is in stars. It is pretty well established that elements up to iron are fused in stars with heavier ones coming from supernovae.

Established is the wrong word. You're just parroting what you've read and been taught Kittycat. We believe heavy elements are fused in stars, because we assume according to our models about solar system formation that that is where it has to take place because there is no other option. But is that necessarily true? Nope. When the entire cosmological model is based around gravity as the driving mechanism behind all stellar formation and solar system evolution, it excludes the other option in the toolbox. Electricity.

Gravity is so pathetically weak that is requires supernova, the (mythical) big bang, (mythical) blackholes, accretion over millions and millions of years to accomplish what we observe in the Universe. And even then it is still not enough.. hence the invention of dark matter to ensure a tight mathematical fit.

Electricity and plasmas involve forces many orders of magnitude greater than can be accomplished by gravity, and the affects of electricity and plasma physics processes explain with a far greater accuracy what is actually observed in space. I highly recommend anyone with an open mind and interest in science look into it.

 

[Ninae]

As for my vampire comment, I meant that to be more funny than serious but on a more serious note, it's long been kind of a theory of mine that when a vampire decides to burn in the sun - his/her energy goes into the sun.

This is in the same vein as the practice of working with the sun to achieve enlightenment by various kinds of yogis, as the sun is seen as the main source of spiritual energy in our world. So positively inclined beings would experience the sunlight as beneficial and negative ones as harmful. Kind of like how demons are scared of angels coming down to hell to destroy their creations.

 

[Kittycat5]

Care to share some references for this electricity model? I have an open mind but are you seriously saying the majority of physicists have overlooked this phenomenon simply because it was not taught to them?

And how is electromagnetism any less a convenient mathematical model for observed information? From Faraday to Feynman, to Weinberg, Salam & Glashow mathematics was the tool used to describe electromagnetism. Can we observe electric fields? No, we can observe the charges interacting with them but I guess by your logic relating to dark energy, we need to redevelop all we know about electromagnetism too since we cannot see one of its fundamental concepts that just happens to fit the data and math.

And what would you like to call the directions in which we move and the measurement from one moment to the next? For all I care we can call them bizllebeboppins but that is all what physicists mean by dimensions. So since you think space and I guess time are abstractions, we all must just be sitting here doing nothing, always and forever. And you are misrepresenting the flatland idea. It is how string theorists and others who work on the notion there are more spatial dimensions try to visualize them, not time. Now we can both agree that as of now, higher spatial dimensions are not a physical reality, but time (or again make up your own name) certainly occurs. You cannot have a theory of non-static electromagnetism, or anything without knowing how it changes with time. You are putting the ideas of space and time into the metaphysical, when really they are just descriptors.

And the luminiferous ether was ruled out long ago based on special relativity. Maxwell and others were sure that light (and hence your favorite force of electromagnetism) must travel through a medium like sound does in air. But the evidence against this was starting to mount even before Einstein, and SR was the nail in its coffin. It is not coming back. I won't try to convince you of the proofs for GR because you do not think it is valid, but show me a better theory, that has been repeatedly tested and confirmed for 100 years, can explain in detail how everything from discrepancies in planetary orbits, to the ways we can catalog celestial bodies that may impact earth, to GPS corrections must be made and we can throw out GR.

And willow11, yes the four known forces were once thought to be one superforce. Gravity was the first to break away, followed by EM, the weak and the strong (that order may be wrong). As of now, everything but gravity can be envisioned as parts of the same force that have broken apart and can be described by quantum field theory. It is true, gravity has no corresponding QFT, the graviton has never been found, and gravity does seem much different than any other force. But again, I do not care what words we call it, the current theory of massive objects warping spacetime is gravity. I have said it in other posts that it would be really amazing if GR can be disproved, but that simply has not happened.

 

[swilow]

I've literally moved the goalposts :D

I think this topic may be broader then climate change so I've tried to retitle it to allow discussion of alternative scientific theories as well as climate change. I feel like these issues are balanced on a related fulcrum, perhaps that of the limits of knowledge.... Anyway, yeah.

Of course it's a mathematical construct! When the experts realized that there wasn't enough mass from conventional matter in the universe to explain why the Universe is ordered as it is they had to invent dark matter.. otherwise the equations used originally would have to be re-examined for errors. So what did they do? They invented dark matter rather than concede maybe that Einsteins relativistic gravity is just plain wrong. I mean seriously.. matter that can not actually be observed that just happens to balance out mathematical equations? Are you really that naive? They invented something that can not be directly tested for.. it's called bullshit.

Your passion makes it seem like you have something really deeply invested in this. Have you studied astrophysics and come to these conclusions yourself?

Einsteins space-time is just flat out nonsense. Again it is mathematical posturing in an attempt to convey legitimacy, as opposed to actual physics. It's more metaphysics than physics. Why is it bullshit? Two simple reasons. First, space has no properties.. space is an abstraction, it does not actually exist. Something with no properties can not have a force exerted on it and exert a force in return on anything else. Second, time is not a dimension. That is just an absurdity in itself. The audacity of people claiming that "you can't visualize it" just shows what nonsense it actually is.. "oh, think of the flatland example.. 3D people can't perceive the 4th dimension". Again, like dark matter, how, fucking, convenient. And again, it's called bullshit. Just because its taught and the majority believe it doesn't mean it's actually true. Consensus bias is all it is.

You are missing the point here. The whole idea behind Einstein's "spacetime" is to demonstrate that space in fact is not empty. It is real. What is it? Who knows, but if you try and traverse it, you won't get very far. Given the fact that it exerts a demonstrable effect on things we consider "extant", its hard to deny that space certainly does exist. Can you think of anything else, that is does not exist, that directly influences aspects of the physical world? And, of course, I am referring to the time required for anything to get anywhere in this vacuum. Furthermore, the parameters of empty space (temperature, organisation of matter) can certainly lead to complex physical ocurrences, such as the loss of electrical resistance close to absolute zero. This is a known parameter of space that exerts (or reduces perhaps) another force; it exerts effect. Further to that, if empty space/vacuum sits above absolute zero, is this not a distinct "property" of this nothingness? Or why is it not absolute zero? What gives rise to this is radiation, exerting some influence on something. Or would you believe that something that has properties could conceivably not exist? I'm not so sure...

Einstein's GR tells us that gravity can not exceed light speed, as nothing can. This is just a plain absurdity. Gravity is clearly instantaneous, as Newton suggested. In fact it is many orders of magnitude faster than light. It has to be, otherwise the planets would not hold the orbits they do around the Sun without flying off into space.. the Earth has to know where the Sun is now and react to that, not where the Sun appears to be in the sky according to light than takes 8 minutes to reach Earth. GR attempts to plug this problem with space-time, but it's nonsense.

Sure sure, except experiments have largely demonstrated that changes in a gravitational field propoagate at light speed. Given that physical reality, its simply untrue to say that without instantaneous gravity, all planets would fly off into space. Its not happening, is it? Surely, if gravity was an instantaneous function, we would not see a universe remotely like what we see. The sun would not have been able to accumulatively form; the planets would not have had the time to accrete the necesary materials for planet construction. Instant gravity would have simply smashed all matter together, at once.

You are welcome to deny the evidence, but iconoclasm as a reflex is just as pointless as blind acceptance.

Established is the wrong word. You're just parroting what you've read and been taught Kittycat. We believe heavy elements are fused in stars, because we assume according to our models about solar system formation that that is where it has to take place because there is no other option.

No, its about chemistry. Again, there may be another means for creating heavy elements, but its simply true to say that stars are energetic enough to do this. A supernovae is even more energetic. Spectral analysis conducted on heavy elements on earth yield consistent results for analysing the makeup of matter on our planet; the same consistency can be expected from distant objects in space; hence we know the physical makeup of many distant objects. Its physically more sound then believing there are several matter-furnaces in the universe, one being stars which contain all required parameters for heavy elemtent synthesis and the other being something we cannot see or detect, remotely, yet, much less speculate as to its workings or origin. I see little point in science examining something with so little evidence.

But if there is somewhere else for fusion to take place; where?

Electricity and plasmas involve forces many orders of magnitude greater than can be accomplished by gravity, and the affects of electricity and plasma physics processes explain with a far greater accuracy what is actually observed in space. I highly recommend anyone with an open mind and interest in science look into it.

Where do I start?

I find the rise of anti-science to be pretty troubling. Its taken a foothold in this age of global warming, as people begin to realise they cannot really escape the physical trth. As Alasdair said, I wonder if many people who deny climate change are aware of who's side they inevitably fall on? It is, assuredly, not the side of the free thinking rebel. It is the side of the iron-fisted, gold-plated corporation.

 

[drug_mentor]

Of course it's a mathematical construct! When the experts realized that there wasn't enough mass from conventional matter in the universe to explain why the Universe is ordered as it is they had to invent dark matter.. otherwise the equations used originally would have to be re-examined for errors. So what did they do? They invented dark matter rather than concede maybe that Einsteins relativistic gravity is just plain wrong. I mean seriously.. matter that can not actually be observed that just happens to balance out mathematical equations? Are you really that naive? They invented something that can not be directly tested for.. it's called bullshit.

Are you familiar with abductive reasoning? My understanding is that the reason they came up with dark matter is not to save themselves the effort of re-examining their original equations (I would bet this has been done many times despite the "invention" of dark matter), but because retaining Einstein's theory of relativity had considerably more explanatory power than scrapping it. This is how a lot of science works, it isn't perfect but in the cases where we rely on abductive reasoning it is the best we have to go on, this process isn't nearly as dishonest as your posts in this thread suggest.

I find the claim I highlighted in bold hilarious coming from a guy who believes in "entities".

Second, time is not a dimension. That is just an absurdity in itself. The audacity of people claiming that "you can't visualize it" just shows what nonsense it actually is.. "oh, think of the flatland example.. 3D people can't perceive the 4th dimension". Again, like dark matter, how, fucking, convenient. And again, it's called bullshit. Just because its taught and the majority believe it doesn't mean it's actually true. Consensus bias is all it is.

This is an argument from ignorance. You are essentially saying we don't know that time is a dimension, therefore time is not a dimension. This is not a valid argument.

 

[Ninae]

I find the claim I highlighted in bold hilarious coming from a guy who believes in "entities".

Hey, don't speak too soon. The Djinn/Archons come up in some of our earliest writings, like old Egyptian text and the Gnostic scrolls, and are a part of most religions. In Christianity, I suppose they would be called demons.

I've spent some time thinking about this now and how you can get rid of them as they interfere with your life and take over your mind. Two times I've had them attempted removed. The first time I was told I had over 1300 in my field, the second time over 2000 (they feed on a combination of positive and negative energy).

Your first reaction is "It's not fair" and you don't want to deal with it. But if they are in fact a reality, which I'm sorry to say I think they are, a more constructive approach could be to take a serious look at it and try to work out how you can get rid of them.

 

[drug_mentor]

Ninae, my point was simply that it is inconsistent for someone who believes in entities, which can't be directly tested for, to state that a theory is bullshit because it can't be directly tested.

 

[-=SS=-]

Are you familiar with abductive reasoning? My understanding is that the reason they came up with dark matter is not to save themselves the effort of re-examining their original equations (I would bet this has been done many times despite the "invention" of dark matter), but because retaining Einstein's theory of relativity had considerably more explanatory power than scrapping it. This is how a lot of science works, it isn't perfect but in the cases where we rely on abductive reasoning it is the best we have to go on, this process isn't nearly as dishonest as your posts in this thread suggest.

I disagree. It is entirely about not wanting to re-examine particular tenets of established science, the greatest being Einstein's relativity and its entanglement with the process known as gravity. The establishment of science functions just like any other establishment.. people rise to the top, get all comfy and do not want the boat rocked for fear it will upset their patch, or require effort on their behalf to embrace a new situation or paradigm. When they realized that there wasn't enough mass in the Universe to account for the motion of stellar bodies you would have thought they would at least entertain the idea that they got something seriously wrong somewhere. But..

Regardless of what you believe you have to concede that dark matter is an awfully convenient explanation to the encountered problem. Something which can not be perceived or tested for is more akin to religious mysticism than science. You're free to believe it's about abductive reasoning, or whatever label, but to me it is clearly a case of pulling a rabbit out of the hat.

I find the claim I highlighted in bold hilarious coming from a guy who believes in "entities".

Different subject area, and you're entitled to not believe they don't exist. I don't really care what you think to be honest.

This is an argument from ignorance. You are essentially saying we don't know that time is a dimension, therefore time is not a dimension. This is not a valid argument.

It's perfectly valid. Time is an abstraction, it has no actual being or value other than what we assign to it. It helps us make sense of our existence, but it's not real. It has no properties. You don't have to be a genius to realize time is a fabrication of the human mind.

 

[Ninae]

I get that, but keep saying that leads to people thinking it's no more than fantasy or something to measure ridiculousness against. When if in fact there is some truth to it, it might not be a good idea to do that.

 

[Kittycat5]

You do realize SS that people are attempting to test for dark matter. If they fail, they will need to re-examine the theory and come up with a new hypothesis. Maybe this will be a change to GR or maybe something no one as of yet has considered. But I agee with drug mentor that given the success of GR up until now, it seems entirely reasonable to try and figure out what the hell dark matter is or isnt within the concepts of GR.