The MASM Forum

General => The Colosseum => Topic started by: Raistlin on March 30, 2016, 08:16:01 AM

Title: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Raistlin on March 30, 2016, 08:16:01 AM
So all theories on Dark Matter is pseudo quack - so here's mine (Nobel prize to follow - yes I said it first in a drunken or not stupor)

Theory / Hypotheses:
-------------------------------
Dark Matter is very small, at is core; in essence largely distributed space dust (small proton with singular or minimal electron) with neutral magnetic polarization.
Heat from standard matter interaction and/or radiation (gamma etc.) creates polarization shifts in dark matter that creates on mass - the observable
clumping effects; as viewable for standard matter distributions.

By my very virtuous assumptions (just for gags: hundreds of real scientists do this year by year with huge grants) then:
1) It would explain why matter is more closely clumped in the center of our galaxy and the speed of stars throughout is constant.
2) Why dark matter is more prevalent around matter than not.
3) Observations/inferences closer to home using quantum theory/atom smashing have been fruitless thus far. (30 years so far)
4) Lensing effects for non-observable galaxies is possible.

Experimental proof would require the capture of such "dust" preferably outside the influence of
an overwhelmingly(arbitrary statement) gravitational/radiation (perhaps this has always been the problem in detection all along) source.
The deteriorating polarity of "dust" further away from a known matter source - is key to validation.

 
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: K_F on March 30, 2016, 05:16:22 PM
I watched a National Geographic doccy 'Galaxies' the other day.
Showed some interesting stuff.. They had people talking about their theories, and even from a 'layman' pov, one could whack big holes in their theories.
But they were so excited about their ideas... they seemed to ignore those points, or didn't mention the possibilities.

There was the one woman talking about a big black hole at the centre of the galaxy, and the justification for this, was the one star 'whipping' around a so called high gravity spot.
Conclusion = must be a black hole -- My version = could just be a centre of mass (there are a lot of stars in that area) ?

The next was that all the objects in the galaxy were all moving at the same speed around the centre - Well that just laid to rest orbital mechanics that has been used successfully for the past 50 years. How stupid could we have been.

Next was NASA's large computer system to simulate dark matter structure (I think it was) that holds the universe together... 'Lo and behold' the result it produced was exactly what they had predicted.. to the tee. They went to great lengths to explain the 1000's or IBM processors that were working on this 'problem', and how long it would take on a normal computer.
Maybe they should have done that .. it would have cost a lot less to produce a 'canned' result.

The thing is that I can well believe that these 'researchers' are doing some work.. but shyte.. to come up this and then put it out for public consumption.
I worked in the same environment and saw this type of Noddy science that went on.. these people are not researchers, they shouldn't be allowed to clean the toilet of a real Research Scientist.
 :biggrin:
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: K_F on March 30, 2016, 05:30:53 PM
Sorry.. back to dark matter  :icon_mrgreen:

My take (I should be on National Geographic), is that like gyroscopes, rotating systems line up wrt local gravity lines.
With all the spiral galaxies one could 'draw' gravity lines and then compare that to the gravity of all the known systems.
Any anomalies would most likely be 'dark matter', but one would get a resultant gravity of this matter rather than it 'exact' location.

I suppose one could still work out a local distribution of matter, if one divides the galaxy into volumes and work from there.
That's for spiral galaxies, Now Cluster galaxies could be where there are gravitational Null points, and these could be key features in deciphering Dark Matter.

I'll wait for the National Geographic film crew ... ;)
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on April 03, 2016, 04:19:48 AM
Raistlin, "small proton with singular or minimal electron) with neutral magnetic polarization"

All protons are the same size, on the order of 10^-15 m - so "small" is redundant. They are accompanied often by a "singular" electron - that's called "hydrogen". Perhaps you could call its magnetic moment "polarization", not the normal term. It's one Bohr magneton - not "neutral".

Bottom line your "space dust" is hydrogen. They know pretty well where it is and how much - it's not dark matter.

K_F, the BH at center of many (almost all) galaxies is definitely a very heavy dense concentration of matter. It can't be just a "center of mass" of a lot of stars, for various good reasons. For instance the mass has to be something like 4 million Sols in Milky Way to account for observed motions. If that was a bunch of stars it would take a lot of room (at least 100 light years diameter, absolute min), and they would be very noticeable. No it has to be concentrated. That's what they call a BH. Nothing strange about that, the only craziness is the idea of what goes on inside such an object: a singularity which allows time travel etc. That's just theoretical BS. But the astronomical observations are not, there's got to be something exotic there. So when they say "BH" just imagine that, and forget all the wormhole BS you may have heard.

Objects in galaxy (like us) moving at same speed: that's roughly true, which of course violates Newtonian orbital mechanics as you say. This is precisely the reason they assume dark matter. (Other reasons too).

No question, a lot of BS among those physicists. Very sad because the real stuff sounds, at first glance, like BS also, so without a lot of digging you can't tell the difference. Makes the proverbial "intelligent layman" just give up and send the whole lot of them to the devil.

You mention gyroscopic influences being involved - that's like "gravitomagnetism" which is semi-respectable idea.

My personal whacko theory is that BH's are a new phase of matter which produces torsional gravity, out to great distances. That's what causes the anomalies they misinterpret as Dark Matter. Could be totally wrong, but if not: remember, you heard it here first!

Anyway - as I've mentioned b4 I know this stuff well, so if you have questions ask, very few physicists can explain it better because their primary motivation is to show off and baffle the audience, whereas mine is to explain. Plus for the most part their teaching skills are normal.

BTW there's a joke physicists at the local uni make about "Dark Matter" which is not suitable for public consumption, but you can imagine.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: hutch-- on April 03, 2016, 09:15:29 AM
I havew always had this problem with theories of cosmology, its awful hard to get out there and have a good look at what is there but there is a technology coming using nuclear power to make propulsion devices that have far greater life then the current rocket technology and if this can be got going (both American and Russian sources) it will drastically reduce space travel time and the capacity to maneuver space vehicles will make controlled orbiting a reality around distant objects. I doubt this technology will get space crafts to other solar systems but at least its a step to getting further faster.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on April 03, 2016, 01:40:22 PM
Theorizing about cosmology (origin of universe etc) is fine but should not be taken seriously. Unfortunately they do take it seriously so I agree with you, it's a problem. When our rockets can spread us throughout this system - even to nearby stars - cosmology will be a little more reliable. But at least a million, more like a billion, years of expansion must occur before I'll really believe a word of it.

However "local" cosmology - i.e. astronomy - is different. Some of that knowledge (like, how stars work) is pretty solid.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: FORTRANS on April 03, 2016, 11:00:26 PM
Hi

However "local" cosmology - i.e. astronomy - is different. Some of that knowledge (like, how stars work) is pretty solid.

   Actually, a pretty plasma.

Cheers,

Steve N.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on April 04, 2016, 01:28:35 AM
The knowledge is unlikely to be either solid or plasma. My guess, it's a path through neurons mediated by semi-static ionic potentials, located in the neocortex, controlled by the thalamus, long-term stored in (of all places) the cerebellum. Or perhaps it's the EM field generated as neuronic firings occur along that path; or a quantum wave associated thereto; or ... well, nobody knows. But it's probably not a plasma!
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: nidud on April 04, 2016, 02:12:10 AM
Well, back to the virtual reality theory again  :biggrin:

If the theory is correct the periodical system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table) must be infinite. Elements in the twilight zone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununseptium) and beyond will then exist but be out of reach.

If they disappear the theory is correct but if they just dissolve into lesser dense elements then dark matter do not exist, so what really happens?

Bohr claimed that atoms with atomic number greater than 137 would require electrons to be travelling faster than the speed of light, but the model is inaccurate when applied to such an element.

So what is the maximum atomic number?
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on April 04, 2016, 03:54:14 AM
The max atomic number turns out to be 173.

Hydrogen s-orbital electron goes approx. 1/137 c - alpha constant x speed of light. You might object that it's supposed to be a "cloud", a stationary wave function making a standing spherical wave, which doesn't move at all. Ignore that - for this exercise we suppose it actually orbits the proton, at 1/137 c.

At lower atomic numbers, say N, the inner electron goes N * alpha. The speed of the first orbit is simply proportional to the central force. If that doesn't sound right from Newtonian mechanics, note that it orbits closer.

However as N increases, this simple linear relation holds only approximately. The inner electron goes slower than N * alpha, due to the influence of all those outer electrons. That's why the largest possible atom (based on this criterion only) is more than 137. Detailed calculations show it's 173 instead.

As for infinite periodic table - must admit I've never heard of it, sounds incorrect.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: nidud on April 04, 2016, 04:43:56 AM
Think the idea of an emulated reality is that the clock frequency in the emulation is lower so when c increases the table expands.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on April 04, 2016, 11:21:59 AM
Makes some sense, nidud, if you want an opinion give me a reference.

BTW hope you're doing well. Watch out for those refugees!
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: nidud on April 04, 2016, 02:44:32 PM
It’s basically the idea that this reality is a simulation, so I made a recursive joke where the creators most likely lived in the matrix themselves given the meaning of life then will be to create a virtual reality sophisticated enough to create a new one.

Each level will then have a fixed clock frequency lower than the previous one, which in turn will have an impact on the maximum atomic number.

Well, here’s the punch line of the joke:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality)

Quote
The simulation argument also has implications for existential risks. If we are living in a simulation, then it's possible that our simulation could get shut down. Many futurists have speculated about how we can avoid this outcome. Ray Kurzweil argues in The Singularity is Near that we should be interesting to our simulators, and that bringing about the Singularity is probably the most interesting event that could happen. The philosopher Phil Torres has argued that the simulation argument itself leads to the conclusion that, if we run simulations in the future, then there almost certainly exists a stack of nested simulations, with ours located towards the bottom. Since annihilation is inherited downwards, any terminal event in a simulation "above" ours would be a terminal event for us. If there are many simulations above us, then the risk of an existential catastrophe could be significant.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on April 04, 2016, 06:36:11 PM
Oh, that type of simulation! I think I beat Hans Moravec with my simulation hypothesis (1998). Examining physics we see some evidence for it, Planck's constant and speed-of-light may be time slice and simulation "fence", and so on. I still don't see my key arguments anywhere, there are a few more. At least I can't say they stole my ideas, unless it was just the basic one of the simulation possibility. It's absolutely amazing what idiots these so-called "philosophers" like Deutsch are (actually haven't read Moravec; he couldn't possibly be as abysmal as the others that I have read).

It's wrong to suppose each level "must" have lower clock frequency in the sense you mean, for a variety of reasons ... Believe me your own thoughts on the matter are worth more than all of these fools put together (with possible exception of Moravec, as mentioned)
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on April 05, 2016, 02:35:40 AM
Looked into it a bit, seems Moravec beat me by 2 years. Have to read him someday. Of course my paper was just "published" on the internet; at that time real physicists hated it. BTW I didn't propose simulation as "real" just an interesting possibility - and it still is.

Re. Deutsch - he's not that stupid! I get annoyed when I see his inferior philosophical thoughts getting such attention. But he makes lots of good points when he's not obsessing about MWI.

Anyway if you want to know how a simulation might really work, ask - it's much more interesting than those guys imagine
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: nidud on April 05, 2016, 04:51:04 AM
Even if the idea is far fetched I guess it creates a good sandbox for debating alternate realities. Given this is a big part of our genetically inheritance as we spend a large part of our lives in an alternate reality sleeping or daydreaming, you may argue it becomes a philosophical necessity to explain religion, as this ability makes divine realities possible.

It’s also feed the futuristic entertainment industry  :P

Black Mirror - White Christmas

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2zyoHC8OpY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2zyoHC8OpY)
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on April 05, 2016, 05:57:39 AM
nidud: good sandbox for debating alternate realities

Yes that's one key point I haven't seen mentioned in recent treatments. If you set up a basic "template" to describe a universe you can easily add something to express a new idea - including real physics not just "alternate". Much new physics is hard to encapsulate with the traditional technique, differential equations, but easy to add as an "if statement" in your "stem object" (from which all others are derived). For instance quantum entanglement, baryon number, etc. Also note, to solve those diff eq's you wind up translating to an algo (like Runge-Kutta) anyway, why not start with one?

So there are practical reasons to use the model of "Universe Simulator" even without postulating its reality.

Like I told you - if you give it a moment's thought you'll start coming up with better ideas than these so-called philosophers who monopolize the conversation via the "buddy system"
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Raistlin on April 05, 2016, 04:03:53 PM
Stunningly I might have not been so far off in my quack theory as quack theories go whilst inebriated.
Just got the wrong dark thingy:  :icon_eek:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150820144719.htm

Oh and rrr - thought you might like this :
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160314111131.htm
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on April 05, 2016, 11:42:26 PM
Raistlin: Stunningly I might have not been so far off in my quack theory

- wouldn't surprise me. the physics field is full of quackery and ripe for a new paradigm

Comment re. first reference: "Chameleon particles" - my sweet patootie!

From second ref: "There are indications that we might never see the universe's mysterious dark matter."

- I think it's hiding in the same closet as ether and phlogiston ... go look there
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: nidud on April 06, 2016, 01:35:27 AM
So a void of nothingness is hiding from us.

Maybe that’s the answer to the expanding universe: someone dropped a ball of dense mass in a void of nothingness. The energy will then not come from something inside, as a big bang, but from nothing outside.

Dark energy is then nothing and nothing is more powerful than the big bang  :P
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on April 06, 2016, 04:38:15 AM
nidud: "... someone ..."

- Who?
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: HSE on April 06, 2016, 05:59:57 AM
The same who make the simulations?


Sorry  8)
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: nidud on April 06, 2016, 07:39:46 AM
 :biggrin:
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on April 06, 2016, 08:00:50 AM
The same who make the simulations?

- You know, the simulation paradigm would be perfectly acceptable but for this problem - a simulation program implies a programmer,
and that implies G*** WHACKO ALERT THIS WORD IS PROHIBITED BY NSA Report to your local FBI office immediately for processing ***
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: HSE on April 06, 2016, 08:30:26 AM
 It's a very usefull concept for the unknown. No matter how many enigmas are solved, always there is more questions.

 

Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: nidud on April 06, 2016, 09:31:13 AM
The programmer is simulated and the stack is eternal: there is no beginning or end  :P
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on April 06, 2016, 09:39:59 AM
Someday we'll learn how to create the perfect AI, made of pure energy, and travel back in time. Go back to the beginning of time - but then the AI takes over the spacetimeship and explodes it in just the right way to create an expanding sphere of space, time, energy and matter. 13.7 billion years later we evolve on planet Earth, learn how to create the perfect AI, made of pure energy, and travel back in time ...
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Siekmanski on April 06, 2016, 09:47:19 AM
rrr314159,

You should sell this format to Hollywood.  :biggrin:
Great material for a Sci-Fi movie "The Energy Loop".
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on April 06, 2016, 10:29:53 AM
My people are already talking with Irwin Winkler's people about this project. Working title is "Sex in the Energy Loop". We've got Scarlett Johansson for the part of "Ultra Nine", but we're having a hard time casting a really handsome male lead with a really cool haircut. Are you interested?
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Siekmanski on April 06, 2016, 10:42:29 AM
Yeah, but I have to go back in time first to find my hair back.  :biggrin:
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on April 06, 2016, 12:31:16 PM
I'll write that into the plot
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: hutch-- on April 06, 2016, 01:39:21 PM
 :biggrin:
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Raistlin on April 06, 2016, 03:48:18 PM
patootie <--- Had to google it (thanks for the new word rrr - so which did you mean? - or are they interchangeable dependent on mood)

Meanings provided :
--------------------------
1) a girlfriend or a pretty girl
2) a person's or animal's buttocks.

LOL - yes gentleman the era of the quack is among-st us - but it's too "dark" to see.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: nidud on April 08, 2016, 07:50:25 AM
Quote
If you set up a basic "template" to describe a universe you can easily add something to express a new idea - including real physics not just "alternate".

Or a template to explain the origin of real physics.

A void of nothingness will logically start with zero so the tip tap toe of creation will then be:

   0.   Void
   1.   Singularity
   2.   Movement

So in the beginning there is nothing. No mass or time, just eternal space of nothing. At this point the laws of physics don’t apply so both mass and void is absolute.

The gravity from the void is then absolute and will work on any potential object of mass equally from all sides, so if a perfect sphere is inserted into the void it will not move. It will however create a sphere-shaped energy field around the ball.

At this point we have a static situation with mass and energy but no movement so time doesn’t exist.

The next thing that happens is that Thor swings by and hit the sphere with his hammer and manages to make a dent in the ball. As a result the ball starts to rotate and the clock starts ticking.

This rotation will then generate a two-dimensional energy field that sort of cut the sphere of dark energy in half. The rotational speed of the ball will then be the clock frequency of the known universe, which is pure energy.

In reality the 2D surface is the flat screen of the programmer’s computer. When he turns it on the CPU generates a clock frequency needed for the simulation. This generates a holographic 3D reality of pure energy. However, before he turns on the computer he has to connect it to the power grid.

The physicians from the holographic society call this Dark Energy.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on April 08, 2016, 04:23:53 PM
nidud: "In reality the 2D surface is the flat screen of the programmer’s computer."

If there is a programmer, then from his POV that may be right. But from your POV, the flat screen is the thin "2-dimensional" neo-cortex folded around the rest of your brain.

now, it's obvious where Thor comes from - anyone can figure that out. And since there was mass, his hammer is inevitable. But before there was movement, how could he swing his hammer? And how could that event be the "next" thing, when there was no time?

Maybe it's just one of those "Nordic Logic" things that only people who are always cold can understand
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Siekmanski on April 08, 2016, 07:40:54 PM
Preview: New Theory Prof. Erik Verlinde unmasks 95 percent of the universe,
( It's written in Dutch )

http://www.newscientist.nl/nieuws/vooruitblik-nieuwe-theorie-ontmaskert-95-procent-van-het-heelal/

Prof. E.P. (Erik) Verlinde proposes that gravity is not a fundamental force but rather an amalgamation of other forces. If Verlinde’s gravitational theory is correct, then that will have huge consequences for how we think about the universe and its evolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iigNHgUGjYA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSYXt3Xu3xI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyomGtZCsmI
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: nidud on April 08, 2016, 09:56:02 PM
Quote
Maybe it's just one of those "Nordic Logic" things that only people who are always cold can understand

 :biggrin:

True. The Norse image of the world is a sphere with a flat surface in the centre where people live.

But I actually do hold the view that nothing exist, and that this is still the main source of energy. If it’s possible to insert mass into this equation without generating movement is another question.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on April 09, 2016, 04:00:26 AM
Well you might as well check out Null Physics (http://www.nullphysics.com/). I don't have any use for it but he (Terence Witt) certainly pushes the idea that "nothing exists" as far as it can go
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: nidud on April 09, 2016, 05:39:09 AM
I have always assumed the universe to be eternal and the time and space section of it to be limited but expanding. I have to admit that I haven’t really paid much thought to this but I assume this expansion needs additional space.

Maybe that’s where the sphere comes in as an image where the simple logic is that nothing includes everything and beyond every thing else there is nothing.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on April 10, 2016, 01:51:02 PM
Supposedly spacetime itself is expanding. So yes the expansion "needs additional space" but it wasn't already there, it's created by the expansion.

Similarly time itself is part of the expansion: it wasn't "already there" but began at the Big Bang. And there's no future time "ahead" of us, it too is being created by the expansion. That's why they say the question "what came b4 the Big Bang" is meaningless.

Does that make sense? Well, it might, but it does NOT really answer the question. Ok, maybe our local time axis is finite, but that probably means it's just part of a bigger picture - somebody else's time axis. So you can still imagine that in that sense the universe is "eternal".

Alternatively, you can suppose modern physics is on a wrong track entirely. Certainly possible.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: jj2007 on April 10, 2016, 04:43:00 PM
this expansion needs additional space

Dumb question from a mere mortal: that "extra space" expands against what? Non-space? Matter? Vacuum?

When looking at "the universe", aren't we rather looking at a sphere in infinite space, i.e. a ball filled with matter, more or less densely, whirling in a bigger area that has absolutely no trace of matter?
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on April 10, 2016, 07:25:49 PM
It's important to note, you don't have to actually believe modern physics.

When they're talking about the here and now they're amazingly accurate. For instance they know how much heat will be released burning a barrel of oil, and how rainbows work, and so on.

But when it's about events 14 billion years ago, when the entire universe fit in a space smaller than a grain of sand, you have to take it all with a grain of salt.

jj2007: Dumb question from a mere mortal: that "extra space" expands against what? Non-space? Matter? Vacuum? When looking at "the universe", aren't we rather looking at a sphere in infinite space, i.e. a ball filled with matter, more or less densely, whirling in a bigger area that has absolutely no trace of matter?

- General Relativity specifically assumes there is NO thing outside - not space, time, matter, vacuum or even "non-space".

That's partly what makes the math difficult. GR doesn't assume a larger space we're "embedded" in. The point of differential geometry is to describe timespace "from the inside", from local curvature only. Then you piece together different local curvatures to get the total timespace. You may have heard of "Christoffel coefficients": that's what they're for.

The details don't matter (unless anyone is interested), I'm just emphasizing that in GR there is, deliberately, NO "super-timespace" we're embedded in. As the universe expands, it creates the time and space to expand into.

Note, GR doesn't insist there's no super-space, only that it's not necessary for GR's purposes. But, if GR's right, that super-timespace has to be a different time and space continuum. It can't just be more of the same old time prior to the Big Bang, and more of our type of space to expand into. For instance in the simulation theory it's the timespace inhabited by the programmers; our "lesser" timespace is just an artifact of the program (somehow).

OTOH If GR's wrong (entirely possible) then the Big Bang (if indeed it ever happened) could have been just a huge explosion, more or less as you imagine. Time could go back forever before the event, and "infinite" space could have always been there ready for the explosion to expand into.

Don't forget the whole thing might be an illusion anyway! It's good to understand what modern physics says about this issue, but it's not worth too much cogitation; the answer simply is not available.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: nidud on April 10, 2016, 09:08:02 PM
The basic structure of this reality is an atom with a three way split of an electron, a proton, and a neutron. This three way split also apply to living organisms where A consumes the droppings of B, B of C, and C of A. If one of them grows faster than the other two this symbiotic relationship will collapse. However, if there are three with the same problem, A in the first, B in the second, and C in the last one, they will benefit from a merger and that’s how a more complex organism is created.

The same thing applies to the atom. It expands, merges, and creates complex structures, which in turn end up as living organisms. This means that everything in the known universe derives from this simple atom.

I had a very enthusiastic teacher when I went to school and he took us down to a football stadium with a tomato and a pea. We put the tomato in the centre and the pea at the end to sort of illustrate the size of the elements compare to space it occupy. We then calculated the volume of the sphere (and the cube) with a diameter equal to the field and compare this to the volume of the tomato and the pea. This will give you a ruff estimate of the potential mass compare to space occupied by these elements. However, these elements are more "pure energy" than "real mass" so you end up closer to nothing than something.

This is referred to as inflation from solid mass (not made by atoms) that exploded (the Big Bang) and thus created the known universe.

This is called the Initial singularity where a body containing all mass explode so I will assume "the rest" is empty space. The question that pops up here is whether this vacuum accumulate space, which it sort of have to in my view. However, the idea that the expansion "creates space" will still be logical if you calculated it from within this inflation but it gets rather complex from that point of view.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on April 11, 2016, 01:40:07 AM
That's fine but let's not waste too many brain cells on this issue. We need to conserve them for important things, like finding our glasses. No doubt you and I, working together, could figure out the origin and underpinnings of the universe in a heartbeat. But what the heck, let's leave a few puzzles for future generations to work on.

If you want to understand the "big picture", the key (as I've mentioned before) is consciousness. That topic is truly worthy of your precious neurons.


Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: nidud on April 11, 2016, 04:26:56 AM
We need to conserve them for important things, like finding our glasses.

Had to switch to Extra Large font size a few days ago  :lol:
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Raistlin on April 14, 2016, 03:54:22 PM
Black Holes 'NSinc: The SA discovery that's got astronomers in a spin
Marelise van der Merwe
Daily Maverick - ‎12‎ ‎April‎ ‎2016

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2016-04-12-black-holes-nsinc-the-sa-discovery-thats-got-astronomers-in-a-spin/#.Vw8wW_l96M8

Interesting article in around-about the topic - thought I'd share
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on April 14, 2016, 08:43:56 PM
Wow - this article is really mind-blowing! Incredible! Surprising is too mild a word. Do you realize what this means ???

"A deep scan of the sky in radio waves revealed something completely unexpected to South African astronomers: that somehow, and for some unexplained reason, supermassive black holes in one region of space are all releasing radio waves in the same direction."

- South Africa is good for something !!!
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Raistlin on April 14, 2016, 10:01:45 PM
Code: [Select]
- South Africa is good for something !!!
erm... thanks I think.

@rrr: I did'nt quite get WHY everyone is excited - please do tell !!!!

To my mind it could mean the universe comes from a single point in space that we might be able to trace back to ?
- but was'nt that true for the BIG BANG theory as well anyway ?

OR wait, do you mean the universe did'nt expand exactly from a single point in all directions at once - but an asymmetrical blow out ?

How does this help to know though?

 
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on April 15, 2016, 06:32:15 AM
The BB didn't come from a single point in our 3-d space, rather it happened everywhere at once. Don't forget it might not have happened at all - but it is today's favorite theory so might as weil stick with it.

Galaxies started forming some time later, nobody knows, more than a million years anyway. The assumption is that the energy was very randomly directed at this time - that's why the Microwave Background Radiation is isotropic and thermal, blackbody radiation. Locally, random little vortices formed which swirled together into galaxies. There's not supposed to be any order or correlation among them.

Now they've observed strong correlation across a large area: all the massive BH's at centers of many galaxies are spinning in the same direction (which determines emission of radio waves in same direction). That's not supposed to happen according to current thinking. That's why they're surprised.

To me it's extremely stupid. They don't have enough data to understand origin of galaxies, or universe for that matter. What they should do is just observe, for the next 1000 years perhaps. Find out where the galaxies are, which way they're spinning, how big they are, how big their central BH's are, which way they're spinning, etc etc. Put it all in a big database, make it available to scientists and the public. Some day perhaps there's enough data to start theorizing.

Instead they theorize in the absence of facts. Therefore, every time they look through a telescope they find something else that doesn't fit their premature theory, and are surprised. What a waste of good amazement.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: xanatose on April 17, 2016, 01:31:09 AM
What a waste of good amazement.

True  :biggrin: Altough without the periodic amazement, funding tends to magically stop.

We are a relatively young civilization. And yet we believe we have enough data to say how the universe works. Like a toddler believing it understands the world.

We have just starting level 1 (climate manipulation). We still need to go to the planet manipulation, then interplanetary colonization. Then star travel, then star manipulation, then galaxy travel, and finally galaxy manipulation before we can really claim to understand the universe.

My wild guess is in a million year or so, if we survive. Maybe our future AI, if we don't.

Then we will need to try and understand the multiverses.

Assuming of course this that we call reality is not just a big video game simulation made by a 5 dimensional being called Bob that lives on his mother basement.

Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Raistlin on April 18, 2016, 03:55:39 PM
Code: [Select]
5 dimensional being called Bob that lives on his mother basement
I've got a view things to ask BOB when I see him or prove his existence.

1) What does chicken really taste like ?
2) Was Elvis a 4th dimensional being ?
3) Why is my computer so slow  ?
4) Was -hutch- really a bot ?
5) Can I hang in your man-cave basement - you must have such cool stuff ?


Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: K_F on April 24, 2016, 02:43:32 AM
I'd be careful what one reads into all this stuff....

When the Big Bang was all the rage.. people just wanted to prove it.. researchers also have to live..somehow!!
- Hubbles Expanding Universe conveniently forgot about Einstein's gravity wells that bent light/radiation, and in doing so shifted it in the red.. OMG!!  there's a shyte load of gravity stuff out there.. Big Bang Theory IIRC originated from this observation.
- Cosmic Back Ground Radiation ignored the same principle, where all the light/radiation bending would create interference patterns in 3D... but it proved part of the Big Bang Theory anyway...

As I've mentioned before on isotope age dating methods... let me repeat :bgrin:

When the Earth cooled down from a molten magma ball, natural isotope elements began to decay.. and this is the basis of isotope age dating (4.3 billion years).. I pricked the bubble saying that molten magma still exists down below and in volcanoes, and also with continental drift the crust is some areas is forced down into this molten morass - essentially resetting the 'isotope clock'.
They avoided me like the plague.. but the Geochemistry researcher I drank beer with, laughed, and we drank more beer - they won't believe you he said.. I know.. I'm not a geologist  ;)

Edt: Someday I promise to proof read my spelling and grammar ;) Although I got a higher pass mark for my second language than my mother tongue..  :icon_exclaim:
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: hutch-- on April 24, 2016, 10:24:20 AM
Thinking back into the archives of doing a course in Cosmology at uni about 40 years ago, the two competing theories back then was steady state (ALA Newton) and the big bang theory (ALA Georges Lemaître). The latter seems to better fit the observation that the doppler effect of red shift says the rest of the universe is receding away from us at an accelerating rate. There was also a theory of a pulsating universe but its proof was even more tenuous than the others. It basically said that the universe shits between big bang and a following collapse in an endless cycle of BANG, POP from a single point to maximum expansion and back again.

I take all cosmology with a grain of salt as it involves no viable means of producing proof, both over time and distance.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: npnw on April 26, 2016, 02:05:34 PM
I always thought that time was a measurement of light. That light is the clock in this universe. That one instant  or tick of the universal clock is when light goes past a point. Then the next moment is defined by the next particle of light passing that point.  The universe is defined in space by the initial release of energy. As the light reaches farther and farther into void, the universe is created by energy and mass. 

Why wouldn't all the galaxy's rotate. Who says the big bang was an outward force, why couldn't it have been a circular vortex of expanding energy instead of a straight line acceleration away from a point.  A circular vortex from a higher energy state into a void may have been needed to pierce and define our space.  This would have made the galaxy's all swirl in the same direction.  Science is suppose to theorize about what you observe, so if the theory doesn't fit with what you observe, then your theory isn't describing what you observe.

Read Einstein a few years back, but I'm not sure I understood everything.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: npnw on April 26, 2016, 02:20:54 PM
forgot to ask about gamma radiation from back holes. If matter is compressed and turned into pure energy, would gamma radiation account for the loss in mass?

Also if space time is curved due to mass. Then if light is traveling away and defining the border, limited mass on the edges of space, more mass and BH's where mass is recompressed to energy and returned to higher energy space, would this account for the discrepancies we have in our space time continuum.

If the universe was instead of a 2d surface in a 3D where matter from the 3d fell to the 2d, what if it was created by the mass slowing down creating a pocket which would seem still in the 3d world. Yet as with all chemical reactions there are different rates of energy.  In some instances such as BH, the energy can spring back into the higher realm. When all mass is converted back to pure energy the BH produce Gamma? radiation,  a high pulse of energy. Would this be matter converting back to a higher state? Crossing the event horizon. 

Is there an exponential loss of energy as the universe expands in diameter, and or loss of thermal ???

As we observe the edge of the universe as those initial light particles or energy expand, if they show the first tick of the clock,  is the reason we can't see anything because there is no defined universe to see?

I'm tired now.

Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: npnw on April 26, 2016, 04:12:46 PM
Can't sleep now.   sigh...  if the universe is made of energy and mass. Okay we agree on that. Then when the universe was first created was time different because the particles of light(??) were densely packed. Therefore moving past a particle of light required less movement, therefore time was faster than it is now.  At the outer edges of the universe as matter and energy travel farther away from the point of origin.  Does time lessen because the density of matter that defines this universe, and our relativity of space as defined by einstein changed because there is more space between the defining particles of light or energy at his location?

Would the loss of energy in the universe be like heat transfer of a water molecule where it evaporates and changes energy state which we cannot discern being 2D beings in a 3D world.  Do the other water molecules discern water vapor or steam?

Didn't they do a study on the background radiation, and postulate that due to the frequency the universe was xx billion years old? They tried to use a thermal view of the universe?

Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: FORTRANS on April 26, 2016, 11:37:39 PM
Hi,

Didn't they do a study on the background radiation, and postulate that due to the frequency the universe was xx billion years old? They tried to use a thermal view of the universe?

   Yes.  Search on COBE, WMAP, and Planck studies.  They determined
the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation.
From that measurement WMAP said about 13.7 billion years, Planck
(newer) said 13.8.  The universe is expanding, therefor cooling.  One
makes some assumptions about the initial temperature and Hubble
Constant, and then given the present temperature the age can be
calculated.

Cheers,

Steve N.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on April 30, 2016, 02:16:15 AM
xanatose: Assuming of course this that we call reality is not just a big video game simulation ...

- There's no justification for that assumption. Put more simply: It's reasonable to suspect the universe is a simulation.

- By saying this, I'm violating one of my cardinal rules: if you repeat it thrice and they still don't hear you, give up. Well - one more time, in bold letters.

xanatose: Then we will need to try and understand the multiverses.

- It's not unreasonable to suppose there are no multiverses of the type presented in contemporary physics. (Although of course there may be, who knows?)

K_F: When the Earth cooled down from a molten magma ball, natural isotope elements began to decay.. and this is the basis of isotope age dating (4.3 billion years).. I pricked the bubble saying that molten magma still exists down below and in volcanoes, and also with continental drift the crust is some areas is forced down into this molten morass - essentially resetting the 'isotope clock'.

- You're right, as far as it goes. Oldest rocks on Earth (AFAIK) are NOT believed to be "original" - they were created some time after formation, from volcanoes. So we can say Earth is at least 4 billion years old or so (the age of those rocks). Based only on that, it could be a trillion years old.

- BUT we know it's not much more, from space rocks: the moon. asteroids, etc; and other supporting evidence. All together these data make a convincing case that the solar system itself can't be older than 4.5 billion or so.

K_F: Hubbles Expanding Universe conveniently forgot about Einstein's gravity wells that bent light/radiation, and in doing so shifted it in the red..

- What you're getting at is: the redshift of galaxies, roughly proportional to their distance from us, may be due to gravity wells. I don't see how to use this explanation - without very awkward assumptions. Which is not to say it can't be done.

- My favorite alternative explanation is: speed of light has been steadily (linearly) slowing down since whenever the universe started.

- But, for the time being, my favorite explanation remains the standard one: expansion of spacetime. Perhaps I'd give it 15% chance of being proven right someday. 60% chance we'll never know, with any confidence. (Of course "we" refers to sensible people, not physicists.) The other alternatives appear under the remaining 25%.

- BTW don't blame Edwin Hubble! He never accepted any explanation, not even recession. He felt there was far too little data and knowledge yet. Today he'd still say that, no doubt, but less emphatically; we have a lot more data (not, however, more knowledge).

hutch: ... the observation that the doppler effect of red shift says the rest of the universe is receding away from us at an accelerating rate.

- There's definitely a redshift but it may not be due to recession, rather slowing speed of light, gravity wells, ... who knows. If it is due to recession, the establishment says the recession is due to expanding spacetime. In that case it's not a doppler shift (although similar). If there's no expansion of universe, but those galaxies are actually all running away from us in the conventional fashion: that would be a doppler shift. Yet another alternative explanation which for all I, or anyone else, knows, may be right. But it's harder to believe than the expanding universe.

hutch: I take all cosmology with a grain of salt as it involves no viable means of producing proof, both over time and distance.

- A real big grain of salt! But all you have to do is wait a few billion years; if lucky, we will have solid knowledge then.

npnw: Read Einstein a few years back, but I'm not sure I understood everything.

- You didn't :-) Here are some thoughts on your comments.

Light a measure of time: sure; Einstein says that in "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".

All spiral galaxies rotate, and it's a key aspect of their dynamics (not well understood, of course). Although, there's at least one spiral which almost doesn't, evidently due to some unknown accident. Ellipticals more or less don't rotate; irregulars do so irregularly.

Spirals do not all swirl in the same direction! Distribution of rotation axes among them is not far from random - although I'll bet there are important correlations which astronomers aren't looking for because "theory" (which hobbles modern physics terribly) says there isn't.

Unless you mean, the spirals trail off opposite the direction of rotation, the way it looks intuitively? That's true, except in an unusual case or two, evidently due to some accident.

If you believe GR (which is tortionless) universe probably has no overall rotation. Actually even without GR common sense says that also; but don't forget, common sense would say the Earth doesn't rotate either.

BH and gamma radiation: establishment explanation (which makes a lot of sense) says matter accelerated while falling into a BH produces (one type of) gamma ray burst.

As universe expands (assuming it does) there is theoretically no loss of energy. However thermal radiation does decrease - linearly, not exponentially.

Observation has not yet reached the "edge of the universe", it's still about a billion light years short. Actually visual observations never will get there. (Remember this is all according to theory - and you know what that's worth). But this is nit-picking. The question is, is anything beyond that "edge"? According to latest theory (inflation) yes, there's approximately infinitely more universe beyond - in space. But in time, none.

Was time faster, or slower, back near the beginning? Establishment answer is no, true answer is maybe.

General advice, don't take theory too seriously. Concentrate on the data! Personally I love pictures of galaxies - especially colliding ones. I wish I could get more solid data on their size, composition, rotation velocities (there are many more than just one!), their central BH's, orientations relative to other galaxies, elemental abundances, etc etc. There's also stars: lots of fascinating data, for example re. novas. But it's very hard to find data. What's far too easy to find is theory, theory, theory.

General rule of thumb: if a popular-science book mentions Einstein more than just a few times, throw it away. Especially if it says "As Einstein taught us" - just once! If it mentions galaxies a lot; or stars, rocks, experimental equipment, experimental data, and stuff like that: read it. (Or animals, genes, peas, corn, tops, rotors, camshafts, light, clouds, trees, steam engines - anything real). Also, tell me about the book: I've only seen a handful of good ones.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: npnw on April 30, 2016, 05:06:51 AM
rrr31459 ,

It was a small book on einstein theories.  I loaned it to my math professor and never got it back some years ago, 2003 or 2004.  There was something I was having him read to explain a problem, or perception that we have.  Fourier Transformations will never work due to Analog. Without enough data, the equation can't predict where things are. Therefore we have to develop a new algorithm. Break the problem down.

I whole heartily agree that using someone else's theory if it is not based on enough data will not lead you to the right conclusions. Everyone is fascinated with einstein, and while he was brilliant, lets think on our own.
That is the only way we are going to advance things.

I was kinda speaking my thoughts out loud from what I had read, not that i'm an expert, or that I have studied it in detail. It was a white or tan cover hard bound. Bought it at a book sale for 3 or 6 dollars. Since you hear about him all the time. Figured best to study up on him and his works.

CERN says the cosmology number they have is 1.6 which is right in between proving a single universe 1.3 and the multiverse was something like 1.9 ? Not sure on numbers been a couple years.  Anyway, that would make sense to be right in the middle of both. Otherwise know as they don't know what is going on :)

Have you seen where they used glass to store 360 TB of data?

Had another thought, but it has vanished. Kinda like our space time continuum.

I love the galaxy pictures from hubble, and it really puts us in perspective.


 
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Zen on April 30, 2016, 06:34:21 AM
:bgrin: The really great thing about threads like this is that RRR314159 patiently explains to us,...
...why, in the light of modern physics, we seem to be so completely oblivious to reality. :bgrin:
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on April 30, 2016, 11:27:02 AM
npnw, of course I'm exaggerating about Einstein. Certainly it's alright for a biography to mention him a lot! My favorite (by far) is "Subtle is the Lord" by Abraham Pais.

No, I'm talking about pop-sci books that seem to ascribe every invention of the human race to him. Such as Special Relativity (Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Poincare, others), E= mc^2 (Poincare, Hassenohrl, others), General Relativity math (Gauss, Riemann, Hilbert, others), the helicopter, fire, the wheel, sex ...

Einstein (IMHO) was among the dozen or so greatest physicists. (Of course Newton stands alone at the top.) E. was responsible for the physical interpretation of GR math (a major accomplishment), some valuable insights in SR, and one on E=mc^2. He wrote at least a dozen major papers, any of which would be the capstone of a lesser physicist's career: photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, stimulated emission, EPR, etc. Also dozens of lesser, but good, papers and insights. For every one of them, he relied on vital previous work, which he rarely footnoted. (Often tried to pretend he thought of it himself.) But the pieces of the puzzles he really did contribute were very significant.

I won't argue if someone wants to say he's first among equals (after Newton of course); hey, maybe so what do I know. But he's presented as rather smarter than God. One hallmark of poor pop-sci: he appears on practically every other page.

A sensible writer who covers the standard bases, at layman's level, is Brian Clegg. Others good ones (Roger Penrose, Bart Bok, many more) are at more advanced level: lots of equations.

Having said that even the bad writers (Brian Greene, David Deutsch, Sean Carroll, etc etc) are not all bad. In fact their books are good - might even say excellent - about 2/3 of the time. As long as you can tell the difference between the good and bad parts I can recommend them also.

npnw: CERN says the cosmology number they have is 1.6 which is right in between proving a single universe 1.3 and the multiverse was something like 1.9

I think you're talking about Higgs mass. Both theories kind of struck out: the number was above one's lower bound, below the other's upper bound. Not important - mere theories. The Higgs, OTOH, is important. Electroweak theory, which uses it, is good - for one reason. It has experimental verification. Any theory that doesn't (and won't in the foreseeable future) is just philosophy, usually of the bad kind.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: npnw on April 30, 2016, 11:57:34 AM
rr31459,

Electroweak theory
http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-pushed-water-molecules-beyond-solids-liquids-and-gases (http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-pushed-water-molecules-beyond-solids-liquids-and-gases)

That is the thing you buy a book read all 800 pages and there is one paragraph on page 439 that describes something so well you understand what is going on.

Just as in programming, you have to understand what the program is doing. I kinda laughed at the OPEN SOURCE SSL debacle. Just because you have millions of people who can read the code doesn't mean they understand it or know how its affected, or how it affects things.  The reason open source is so hot is because people who use it don't have to pay for it, so they think they are saving money. Eventually they will not. As the example above.  Some aspects of open source I like, such as experience, and working on solutions to solve problems. The problem is that as they bring people in and out with different experience levels, the continuity of the product is affected.  Its like writing a operating system in Visual Basic. It would be so slow and clunky it would not work very well. 

Knowledge is power. Without proper knowledge, data your just pissing in the wind.

Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: jj2007 on April 30, 2016, 05:28:47 PM
Its like writing a operating system in Visual Basic. It would be so slow and clunky it would not work very well.

You would be surprised how fast compiled VB6 runs (http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.php?345109-C-VS-Visual-Basic). Imagine an OS written in a language that is not as bug-prone as C ;-)

Nine Language Performance Round-up: Benchmarking Math & File I/O (http://www.osnews.com/story/5602/Nine_Language_Performance_Round-up_Benchmarking_Math_File_I_O/page3/)

http://www.xtremevbtalk.com/tech-discussions/229115-vb6-vs-vc-vb6-slower.html
Quote
the biggest cause of the widespread perception of Visual Basic being slow is because so many bad programmers are writing badly implemented programs in Visual Basic.

But that is the price you pay for having one of the easiest languages and development environments around.
The harder languages, will tend to naturally weed out the less competent, thus VB gets the rep. of being the "training wheels" or "tricycle" language, and not suited for "real programmers".

Those programmers who look down on VB, are thus deprived of knowing the great speed and ease that using VB makes when developing most anything.
I'm currently using C++ and QT in a Linux environment to implement a GUI.
But, even as great a tool as QT is, I still will work out an example of how I want to graph my data, take mouse input, etc..., first in VB

In short: "The harder languages, will tend to naturally weed out the less competent" -> VB may be even better and faster than C/C++, but the latter is so difficult that only real geniuses can handle it. And they still produce crappy OS code in Redmond and elsewhere ;-)
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: npnw on May 01, 2016, 12:40:23 AM
jj2007,

Sorry jj didn't mean to offend. It was from my experience in the 90's. I'm sure it has matured and come along way. I know that each language has its strength and weaknesses. Don't want to start an argument over languages. 

VB does and should be faster than the Java, Python,  which I don't like for the most part. 

I think I have a way to fix some of the C code problems.
I used to program in Basic, when it was the only language. Everyone was on the don't write spaghetti code, no GOTO statements! Goto is nothing more than a jump :) If used properly it was fine. I guess they had to say that since they couldn't complain about anything else at the time. So its just old memories more than anything else.

I looked at your code examples and they seem to be well written and it works for you. The problem I have is time. For every language I have to learn it takes time. In order to implement, and accomplish the things I want to do. I need to follow a platform I understand. Now does that mean I will not use something else. This comes down to the problem I am trying to solve, vs the supposed performance, and ease of use. You really don't know how these things work till you have invested the time. You ask other programmers who use the languages if they can do certain things, and it kinda works, the workarounds are difficult, and slow.

So to me its all on your point of view. I enjoy your enthusiasm for Visual Basic, and you definitely make me interested.... but time.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: jj2007 on May 01, 2016, 03:44:41 AM
I enjoy your enthusiasm for Visual Basic

No real enthusiasm for VB here - I prefer MB (http://masm32.com/board/index.php?topic=94.0) 8)
But I definitely think VB (the old VB6) is underrated. Anyway, apologies to rrr whose thread I've hijacked :icon14:
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on May 01, 2016, 04:05:41 AM
My feeling is that theory, by itself, is bad. Unless supported more-or-less every step of the way by experiment it goes astray.

Try closing your eyes and walking in a straight line. Unless you have exceptional physical skills (balance, direction) you'll veer off course soon. Having done so - if you can't open your eyes - you'll continue in a wrong direction. Before too long (a mile, maybe) you'll be going in the opposite direction!

Experiment is analogous to opening your eyes, theory analogous to relying only on your innate sense of direction.

Basic and c languages were a product of hands-on real-world coders, trying to make their jobs easier. They came from "experiment". Visual Basic is somewhat like that too. Faced with the problem of handling GUI code, this was (to some extent) a real-world solution.

However C++ was a product of theory. Computer scientists came up with OOP on theoretical grounds and shoved it down the programmer's throats. Not that OOP is all bad, or stupid, etc. But theory always is wrong, by itself.

I think that's why C++ can be such a mess. VB is probably better; so is any other language that grew out of real programmer's concerns.

Having said that - I have nowhere near enough experience with C++ or modern Operating System coding to really make such a judgment. I'm basing it only on my theory that "theory by itself sucks". So ... take it for what it's worth

BTW jj it's raistlin's thread you hijacked!
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Raistlin on May 06, 2016, 04:18:37 PM
So gravitaional waves were detected not too long ago "proofing" Einstein may have had an original idea.  ;)
see:
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211

Then a couple of days ago some science type people start wading in - saying:
it may have been a gravistar event :shock: <- running off to find out what the hell that is.....


Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: anunitu on May 06, 2016, 08:55:34 PM
Googled gravistar,but still not really clear what it is....
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: K_F on May 07, 2016, 12:01:48 AM
So gravitaional waves were detected not too long ago ... https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211
I've found this ligo thing a bit of a creative story..

Take the moon going around the earth, place a camera on the sea shore and take a sea picture every minute for 12 months (cycles)
Make a film sequence of the pictures, speed it up.. and viola..gravity waves.

They haven't discovered gravity waves.. these were discovered when the first person/animal related the tides to the moon.
 ;)
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on May 08, 2016, 12:25:08 AM
gravity waves are different from gravitational waves!

Waves on the sea are gravity waves. It means, they are caused by gravity - it provides the force that causes the crests and troughs to oscillate. If there were no gravity, for instance a large body of water out in space - well for one thing there'd be no surface, just water droplets throughout the container. But if you created a surface temporarily somehow, you see there would be no waves on it. If the water deformed (made a crest for instance) there'd be no force to restore it to "sea level" - it would just sit there. Gravity waves are common and were first experienced by blue-green algae billions of years ago. BTW the moon is not necessary for them.

Gravitational waves are the ones (supposedly) detected by LIGO. They are (supposedly) waves in "the fabric of spacetime". So to speak. Blue-green algae knew nothing about them! Note that even experts sometimes call them "gravity waves"; it's clear from context what they mean.

The only problem I have with LIGO at the moment is, for decades it's been estimated that there should be 1 to 3 such events per month. Now, they detected one in the first month of operation - in the testing phase when certain checks were not yet operational. They claim that careful processing of the data has taken the place of those checks, and it's a real detection. So far so good.

But LIGO has now been in operation for something like 8 months. Have there been more detections? There have been no hints of such so it looks like the answer is "no". Ok, perhaps theoretical estimates were wrong, they are less common. But if it goes for a year or two without a second detection that pushes the estimate too far, and I will decide the first detection was an error. There's no need to worry about it - just wait a while. They'd better start detecting something soon!

Historical note: the first "gravitational wave detection" was by Joseph Weber in 1963 using just a big bar of aluminum (iirc). That was maybe 6 orders of magnitude less sensitive than LIGO. He also announced a "detection" during the testing phase! After a while with no more detections, it became clear that "detection" was an error.

Is history repeating itself? Don't worry; just wait. See if more detections happen.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: K_F on May 08, 2016, 05:21:42 AM
The tides (as we know) are the result of varying gravity of the moon as it goes around - In essence a gravity/gravitational wave.
The sea being the measuring instrument.

LIGO seems too say they're the first to discover this.. which is science politics and funding.
I just shake my head.
 ;)
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: FORTRANS on May 08, 2016, 08:00:15 AM
Hi,

   Gravitational waves , as predicted by the General Theory of
Relativity, travel at the speed of light.  Tides are much slower and
thus not related.  Different phenomena.

  Taking a refrigerator magnet, rubbing it on your sweater to give it
a static electric charge, and throwing it, does not constitute an
electromagnetic wave under normal conditions.  (Hint:  It is not
traveling at the speed of light as predicted by the Maxwell Equations.)

Cheers,

Steve N.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on May 09, 2016, 01:42:33 AM
K_F, there's a lot of BS in science. They exaggerate everything to get funding, and slant results as far as possible. Scientists have always been like that, but I'm pretty sure it's worse now than usual. So you're right to suspect the "hype" surrounding most, if not all, physics projects which the public knows about.

However you don't want to be a fanatic! They know the difference between gravity waves on the sea and gravitational (let's call them grav) waves. They may exaggerate - in fact they do exaggerate - but nowhere near that much.

Could they mistake the signal from waves on the sea for a grav wave signal? Very unlikely. The one travels a few miles per hour, the other (as FORTRANS points out) 186,000 miles per sec: how could you confuse them? Still, what LIGO actually detects is the frequency, and those aren't so far apart. Grav waves are around 100 Hz (that possible detection event was between 40 and 235). Sea waves, much lower, might be 100 cycles per minute; but they can cause a "rumble", when breaking on shore, around 100 cycles per sec. So it's conceivable. But of course they know all this and go to a lot of trouble to avoid such a mistake. A much more likely source of error, for terrestrial grav wave detection, is a truck on a highway.

Bottom line: they're not making any mistakes obvious enough for us to figure out.

LIGO may or may not have made a real detection; either way, it's still worth the effort. If lucky, it could pay off with grav-wave telescopes providing fascinating info about surrounding space. If grav waves actually don't exist, you might say the money has been wasted; but if we find out they don't, that also would be extremely valuable knowledge.

Admittedly, if the choice were between believing everything they tell the public about science, vs. believing none of it: the latter is safer. So you've got the right idea. In fact we should suspect all the "information" we get from public figures. Except, of course, the golden wisdom from the lips of ... TrumpMan!!
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: K_F on May 09, 2016, 04:20:05 PM
Maybe I'm not explaining myself clearly  :redface:

If you take the tides and speed time up very fast.. (Mhz/GHz range) you do have a gravitational waves effecting the sea level, as the moon whips around the earth like a binary 'star'
Much the same as an electromagnetic wave, effecting the charge of a piece of wire (aerial). Don't think of this as electrical, but particles of mass (electron/proton/etc..)

It's just that the moon is revolving slowly, makes one think it's not a gravitational wave ?
Hope that makes better sense  :biggrin:

I've seen the research funding stories first hand, having worked in a research branch for 5 years... and it's not pretty.
These people make polititians look like angels  :shock:
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: hutch-- on May 10, 2016, 03:38:21 PM
Interestingly enough, part of the downfall of "science" generally has been the emergence of "climate science" where any outrageous statement is sold as science. I think you can safely say that climatic change is well attested as it has been happening over the last 4.5 billion years but the histrionics of how modern humans are responsible for climatic change does not account for climatic changes over billions of years. The planet has been both much hotter and much colder than it is now, there was one stage in the planet's history where the pollution level (oxygen) was up to about 32%.

Now as far as human damage to the entire planet, you can talk about pollution, land clearances, temperature rises and loss of rain forest and it has been happening since ancient times, in mediaevil times trees were burnt for charcoal for early foundry and blacksmithing until at least some governments banned the burning of iron due to deforestation. Look at the filth left over from early copper mining before the common era (bronze age) where the soil is toxic from the early smelting processes or the level of deforestation in ancient China that give the Yellow River is colouring and you will see that pollution damage has been with us far longer than SUV's and industrialised western pollution.

Now lets address some of the bullsh*t science that has been peddled on an unsuspecting public. Al Gore's polar bear that could not swim when you can watch the Attenborough footage of a polar bear that swam 30 miles in the open ocean to get at a beach of walruses. The fiddling of the figures by UK universities, the endless prediction that human activity caused the sea levels to rise when it is well known that since the last ice age the sea levels have risen by about 400 feet. When you have mile thick ice sheets over both poles, as it warmed up 13000 years ago it had to go somewhere.

This type of extravagant bullsh*t has given science a bad name, just as much of advertising making claims about science is nonsense for anything from beauty products to foodstuffs. The company that make a pain relief product called NUROFEN has just had its arse kicked for making claims that were not factual here in OZ.

Don't hold your breath waiting for the truth when money is concerned, effectively the profit levels from an international banking scam that wants to deal in carbon credits is so large that the bullsh*t will continue until they get the control they want. Then more of your hard earnt rubles/sheckles/dollars/pesos etc .... will flow into the pockets of the under 1% of the ruling class. Cruel ain't it.  :P
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: jj2007 on May 10, 2016, 05:15:32 PM
... level of deforestation in ancient China that give the Yellow River is colouring and you will see that pollution damage has been with us far longer than SUV's and industrialised western pollution.

Now lets address some of the bullsh*t science that has been peddled on an unsuspecting public. Al Gore's polar bear that could not swim when you can watch the Attenborough footage of a polar bear that swam 30 miles in the open ocean to get at a beach of walruses. The fiddling of the figures by UK universities, the endless prediction that human activity caused the sea levels to rise when it is well known that since the last ice age the sea levels have risen by about 400 feet. When you have mile thick ice sheets over both poles, as it warmed up 13000 years ago it had to go somewhere.

Hutch,

While I share your feelings about Al Gore, ever since I read how much energy he is wasting with his strictly personal activities (the family consumed 191,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006. This was considerably more than the amount of electricity used by the typical house in Nashville, about 15,600 kilowatt-hours a year (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/al-gores-mansion/)), the rest of your statements is not exactly at the intellectual level that I enjoyed so many times reading your posts :(

Climate science is a science, with a huge majority of intelligent and responsible scientists, and if there is money involved, too, that shouldn't be a surprise in a capitalistic society, right? But there is much more money involved on the "other" side...(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/EvhIAg7NDvQ/hqdefault.jpg)
Climate scientist or Exxon CEO?
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on May 10, 2016, 10:21:27 PM
K_F, sure, the moon supposedly is causing gravitational waves as it orbits Earth. They would be weaker than the 10^-21 level LIGO supposedly detected, by factor of at least 10^15.

Science that the public doesn't hear about is mostly real but anything in public is suspect. Personally I don't doubt a lot of climate science is real, that humans have affected the planet adversely and are continuing to do so. But all this talk about climate change is just a red herring to distract you while they completely destroy the ecosystem, kill all the animals, etc. The Unabomber was right.

Science in general has completely forfeited any authority it once had concerning public policy. Whenever somebody wants to do more ruinous social engineering based on some "study", reach for your gun. (Figuratively speaking). Especially when they want control over your kid's education.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: K_F on May 11, 2016, 12:18:15 AM
Whenever somebody wants to do more ruinous social engineering based on some "study", reach for your gun. (Figuratively speaking). Especially when they want control over your kid's education.
Don't get me started....  :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: xanatose on May 11, 2016, 04:07:17 PM
The Unabomber was right.

He was right on his assessment, wrong on his strategy to solve it. If you take care of one scumbag at a time, it will be replaced by another one faster than you can get rid of them. You need to target parts of the system that enable the scumbags to spread their scum. Then you take care of the scumbags. And that is not a one man job.

Problem is that is difficult to share intelligent ideas to people that are dumber than you. Unless you master the art of deception they will think you are crazy. And most people that master the art of deception are not exactly bright lights. As with everything, if you put all your effort in one area, in this case deception, you will lack on other areas (specially morals).


Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on May 12, 2016, 01:42:19 AM
xanatose:
The Unabomber was right.

He was right on his assessment, wrong on his strategy to solve it.

- Agree completely, that's what I meant.

xanatose:
Problem is that is difficult to share intelligent ideas to people that are dumber than you. Unless you master the art of deception they will think you are crazy.

Being terrible at deception, my strategy is to tell the truth as I see it and let the chips fall where they may. So they think I'm crazy: I can live with that. Maybe they're right.

But there's a trap here, in the words "people who are dumber than you". That's not a good way to think. I've seen it from both sides. My IQ is about 50 points lower than when teen-aged; many adults lose about 1 point a year. So I was once smarter than (almost) everyone else, and called them "a bunch of idiots". Now I'm pretty average (among a group of intelligent people) so can see it from the other side. Here's my conclusion: IQ has approximately no correlation with sense. (If there is any correlation, it's probably negative). So when talking to someone who can't handle math (or whatever) I listen closely, and usually hear more worth hearing than from many "high-Q idiots". Like Scott Aaronson, Sean Carroll, Daniel Dennett, ... ad infinitum.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: anunitu on May 12, 2016, 01:56:11 AM
Think on this
Yah,science marches on,the future is Nigh. we are all saved by science
And
Oh NO,science marches on,and the future in nigh...we are all doomed!!!! by science...

I guess it depends on how science marches...If science does a goose step or a nice little tap dance as it goes...
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: xanatose on May 12, 2016, 03:00:21 AM
Think on this
Yah,science marches on,the future is Nigh. we are all saved by science
And
Oh NO,science marches on,and the future in nigh...we are all doomed!!!! by science...

I guess it depends on how science marches...If science does a goose step or a nice little tap dance as it goes...
Science is just trying to find out what the rules of the universe are.  The difference between a scientist and a scholar is that the scholar base its knowledge in books and what he was taught. While the scientist add observation and experimentation. The scholar is also more interesting on getting more money than on seeking the rules of the universe.

The difference between a scientist and a mad scientist is the willingness of the mad scientist to harm others to get the job done.

As with everything human do. There are more than one good and one bad side. The good side is bigger. But the bad side is louder.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on May 12, 2016, 04:57:32 AM
You're missing Kaczynski's message: it's not about science! Science is harmless; as Martha Stewart used to say "it's a good thing". Technology is the problem - what we might call applied science.

Suppose you took every physicist that ever had anything to do with understanding the atom. Democritus, Rutherford, Einstein, Hahn, ... Oppenheimer, Ulam ... Weinberg, Salam ... about 10,000 men and a few women. Put them all together for 1000 years (suppose they're immortal) with land, food, pen and paper. What would result? A lot of hot air, equations, understanding, models, and excreta of all sorts. Nothing harmful, putting aside the odor.

OTOH suppose you had a bunch of technologists with the same setup: inventors, builders, do-ers. What would result? Everything would get paved, they'd kill each other in all sorts of interesting ways, all the animals would die, and when they came after you, you'd be in big trouble.

Science is harmless. Technology kills.

Why is modern technology two-sided? For some, heaven, for the rest of us, hell? Very simple: the people in charge care about themselves, not about you. Like most of us. But most of us are not in a position to cause so much misery.

The only thing new about the situation is the degree of harm caused, much greater because of technology. 10,000 years ago people destroyed species, and each other; and ruined ecosystems. But it took a lot longer. There were (no doubt) a bunch of a******s in charge. But back then all you needed was a club, and a strong right arm, and you could do something about it. Today, forget it.

All you can do is try to stay out of their way, get a little piece of the pie, be content with it. And wait for the inevitable collapse. This time it's going to be a real doozy.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: anunitu on May 12, 2016, 05:20:46 AM
It seems our fears of destruction are more our fear of ourselves rather than from an outside source. Pondering why such an intelligent species would seem to harbor such a BIG death wish... Humans,can't live with them...really,that about covers it.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Zen on May 12, 2016, 06:18:25 AM
RRR314159,
Interesting article here: Controversial Dark-Matter Claim Faces Ultimate Test, Nature,  April 7, 2016 (http://www.nature.com/news/controversial-dark-matter-claim-faces-ultimate-test-1.19684)
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on May 12, 2016, 02:00:51 PM
anunitu: It seems our fears of destruction are more our fear of ourselves rather than from an outside source.

- Most people are not worried about being destroyed by us - rather, by them.

anunitu: Pondering why such an intelligent species would seem to harbor such a BIG death wish...

- Note this very important fact: no less intelligent species has any death wish at all. The myth of the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden contains real wisdom: maybe she should have left that darn apple alone! Perhaps intelligence is so incompatible with life that any species cursed with it wants, at a subconscious level, to commit suicide.

@Zen, yes I've been aware of those DAMA results for years. The usual attitude of the physics community (which, a fortiori, is also mine) is: there's something wrong with it. Biggest problem: according to their putative DM detection other experiments such as LUX should have been successful; but they're not. The other problem, it depends on yearly variation as Earth goes around the Sun; when going with the Sun there should be more DM flux than against. But there are so many factors varying seasonally, it's hard to rule them out entirely.

That's why this article is good news. It's always good when an experiment gets replicated, but here especially so, because they're setting up detectors in different parts of the world, with different seasons. That will help rule out environmental factors like temperature, etc.

As with all surprising results, I just wait and see. Give it a few years - 3, or 5 - if there's something real here, it should appear. More likely, I'm afraid, there isn't; but - wait and see. Definitely a worthwhile project IMHO.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Zen on May 13, 2016, 06:01:35 AM
Well,...I'm seriously thinking of having ultra-pure sodium iodide crystals surgically installed in my old and dysfunctional brain,...so that I will become a mobile WIMP detector. Could be weird, though. My thought processes will almost certainly be impaired. I wonder if anyone will even notice,...:bgrin:
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on May 13, 2016, 08:05:40 AM
*** WARNING NON-PC ALERT ***

If nothing else, as a mobile WIMP detector, your gaydar will be first-class
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Raistlin on May 18, 2016, 03:50:02 PM
So if you're a fan of satire ("truth made palatable") - John Oliver "Last week Tonight" this seasons ep 11
talks about real- vs pop science and how we've been fooled by media bias and other malicious quackery.
The effect pop-science has on legitimate science. The pressures being placed on real scientist to sometimes
do non-science for the sake of a payslip. Give it a watch - it'll put a smile on your face for the day.  ;)
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on May 19, 2016, 05:44:48 AM
Maybe I'm too optimistic but I sense a paradigm shift coming. Science, theoretical physics in particular, may be ready to shake off the hallucination of the last 100 years and get back to business. Not that they haven't achieved a lot but they've been hobbled by mysticism. Most obvious is relativity, the idea that there's no absolute spacetime reference frame. CMBR defines one which is probably valid. For instance, if a spaceship goes by Earth at .99 c then, from point of view of Earth the spaceship length-contracts. But from pov of spaceship, Earth does! It shrinks to a disk a few hundred miles thick. Official relativity view is, both are equally valid. This is just silly. The spaceship contracts, the Earth doesn't. Period. As I say scientists are finally getting embarrassed repeating such nonsense. Another is: according to QM there's a very small but nonzero chance you'll suddenly find yourself on Alpha Centauri because of tunneling. Another, according to Statistical Mechanics all the air in the room might suddenly collect in one corner, randomly, and you'll suffocate. All these crazy ideas are finally going the way of devils in the garden of eden. Just myths designed to baffle you while you write a check to the High Priests.

If we're lucky in 10 or 20 years students will no longer be taught this garbage. When will the media inform the populace? Never. The media lords will have to disappear and be replaced by new owners in a new society first. Sometime in 100 years I guess - if lucky.

As for John Oliver if it happens to cross my path I'll look at it. John Oliver should be watching me not the other way around.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: anunitu on May 19, 2016, 06:12:54 AM
"As for John Oliver if it happens to cross my path I'll look at it. John Oliver should be watching me not the other way around."

And not even in a wheelchair and talking like a robot...(you know I kid...)

(http://i.qkme.me/36h5ae.jpg)
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: FORTRANS on May 19, 2016, 07:51:28 AM
Hi,

Another, according to Statistical Mechanics all the air in the room might suddenly collect in one corner, randomly,

   Right, at odds of 1 to 10^300(+).  Won't happen.

Quote
and you'll suffocate.

   No time for that.  Going from one atmosphere, to a hard vacuum,
and back to well over one atmosphere in a instant will kill you first.
Or sorta, death is due to embolisms.

Whatever,

Steve N.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on May 19, 2016, 09:01:38 AM
Actually my point is more subtle. That 10^300, or whatever, is NOT justified. Statistical Thermodynamics makes extreme simplifying assumptions and obtains very accurate results in normal circumstances. But this - all the air in one corner - is vastly beyond any experiment. If you get anywhere near it those simple assumptions will be proven wrong, I bet, and the air simply won't cooperate. It would become condensed matter, liquid or solid. Different forces would come into play. The mean-free-path-between-collisions computations would just be completely invalid.

The general point is not to push your theory too far beyond experiments, you will be proven wrong. Science is full of examples, and such mistakes are being made throughout theoretical physics today. The underlying problem can be called: hubris. Another word for it: stupidity.

I'm not sure you'd die. If you believe Arthur C. Clarke at age of 30 or 40 (and who doesn't?) one survives vacuum. Admittedly not a normal science reference but much more reliable than Sean Carroll! He wrote a short story, think it was called "Sunburn", where the hero had to be in space without a suit for a minute or so transiting from one spaceship to another. All he got was a very bad sunburn. Based on that I've always thought vacuum not fatal. Could be wrong.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: HSE on May 19, 2016, 09:53:25 AM
Story tell that, in first russian space walk, Titov suit broke in a arm and he close the air lose with the other hand.  Not close to vacuum but ¡que susto!  :shock:
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: K_F on May 19, 2016, 04:56:59 PM
The current theory is that a physically fit human can survive up to 60 seconds in vacuum (sudden decompression) without any damage.. but they say this is a statistical limit.

There's that whole story about the ISS astronauts on EVA, with their suit filling up with water.
The choice is to either drown, or open your helmet and vent the water into space.
'Experts' say vent the water, but I'd imagine that would create a thrust effect that might send the naut spinning into space. :dazzled:
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: FORTRANS on May 19, 2016, 10:37:17 PM
Actually my point is more subtle. That 10^300, or whatever, is NOT justified. Statistical Thermodynamics makes extreme simplifying assumptions

   Quite right.  Add in the change in energy, momentum, and entropy,
things get much more unlikely.  I was commenting on the statistical
model only.

Quote
I'm not sure you'd die. If you believe Arthur C. Clarke at age of 30 or 40 (and who doesn't?) one survives vacuum.

...

Based on that I've always thought vacuum not fatal. Could be wrong.

   It is not the vacuum that would kill you.  The sudden change in
pressure from the instantaneous movement of air to one side and
its explosive return would make a fatal blast wave or shock front.
Or two of them depending on your definition of the event.  Think
of the inverse of a stick of explosive going off near you.

   If you moderate the decompression, one should be able to
survive a short exposure to a vacuum.  (Ouch though.)

Cheers,

Steve N.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on May 20, 2016, 12:25:01 AM
FORTRANS: The sudden change in pressure from the instantaneous movement of air to one side and its explosive return would make a fatal blast wave or shock front.

- True.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: anunitu on May 20, 2016, 12:51:31 AM
Also in this event,the shock of your body suddenly expelling all of your intestinal matter,right in your pants!
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: BugCatcher on May 24, 2016, 05:42:00 AM
Physical laws remain the same for all frames of reference. There for the earth does compress according to the spaceships point of view. Other wise the speed of light would not be constant.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: FORTRANS on May 24, 2016, 07:19:12 AM
Hi,

   Whether the object is compressed  or just looks compressed
is a matter of how you treat your observations.  Due to the finite
speed of light, an object moving close to the speed of light will
look compressed (and rotated) due to the reduced time difference
between the front and the back of the object.  Luckily, few objects
are large enough, close enough, and fast enough to show the
effects in action.

   It is probably easier to assume the contraction is real to the
observer.

Regards,

Steve N.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on May 25, 2016, 01:50:10 AM
FORTRANS,

You undoubtedly don't want to get into a discussion about Special Relativity, but it's one of my pet peeves. It may be "easier" to assume the earth contracts to a 100-miles-thick disk, just because a spaceship goes by at .999 c, but I simply don't believe it. If I were the spaceship pilot and my measurements indicate that the earth has contracted (which, indeed, they will, as SR shows), I still wouldn't believe it! Instead, I'd believe (actually, know) that my perception was distorted by my high speed, and the Earth was completely unaffected.

Consider: right now, there are cosmic rays (mostly protons) zipping by the Earth at even higher speeds, on all sides. From their pov Earth contracts to, maybe, an inch-thick disk. Since they're at every direction around us, that would mean, in some sense, Earth has contracted down to a tiny marble. It's ridiculous. Obviously their perception is NOT reality.

Lorentz had it right. Contraction is a real phenomenon, independent of perception. But it only happens to the spaceship going at high speed. You can have a flotilla of spaceships all around us, Earth will never be affected at all by their raw speed. Of course we might be affected by their ray guns or photon torpedoes.

Within about 20 years SR will go the way of the dodo bird (not a moment too soon!)

I could be wrong: maybe Einstein was right after all. Maybe perception really IS reality. Similarly, maybe pigs can fly, and dreams really do come true, and Earth is constantly contracting, expanding, and time-dilating every time a proton (anywhere in the Universe, doesn't have to be close) speeds up or slows down. Anything's possible in Einstein's vivid imagination; maybe also in reality.

Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Raistlin on July 20, 2016, 03:50:30 PM
So it seems that our strange universe holds even more mysteries and secrets than
answers and logic. If Dark Matter, Dark energy and black holes were'nt enought there
dead-space alias "Dark Voids" - this one's for rrr to explain, because scientists cant - LOL (we keep rrr in high esteem here on the forum)
I don't even know what I'am looking at.  :icon_rolleyes:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070827.html
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on July 21, 2016, 03:04:10 AM
The universe holds many mysteries, no doubt. But to me the biggest mystery is why these idiots think they can figure it out. If these theoretical cosmologists were put to work as street-sweepers the world would be a much more sensible place; also the streets would be cleaner. A win-win situation! Or, we could just put a bullet (or two, making the desired result more certain) in their heads. Then the world would definitely become a lot more sensible; but the streets would not get cleaned. OTOH you'd save money on feeding them ... it's a tough decision! Perhaps a compromise would be best. Shoot half, make the other half sweep streets.

As for the "void" - apparently there's a region about a billion ly in diameter, in the constellation Eridanus (Southern Hemisphere), which has very little matter (galaxies, dust) in it. (Dark matter, and dark energy, are probably both brown - the color of bullsh*t - so you can ignore those.) There's another void in roughly the opposite direction (Northern Hemisphere, near Bootes) which is a bit bigger. In both cases telescopes (light and radio) seem to see less matter; that's a meaningful observation. The CMB is colder for this Eridanus void, but not for the other (sometimes called the "Giant Void") which indicates you can ignore that data. The presence of voids is not a "mystery" - why shouldn't there be voids? It's just an apparent fact, for which we may someday (a billion years from now) have an explanation. If, indeed, it's still a "fact" then.

There are two types of theoretical astrophysicists who think they can explain it today. One type knows it's all b.s. but hey, they get paid for it. Those are the smarter ones, make them street-sweepers (at a tenth their current salaries). The other type really believe they can explain it - they're hopeless idiots, shoot them. What do you think of that plan, sounds logical doesn't it?
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Zen on July 21, 2016, 04:53:07 AM
RRR314159 IS GOD.

...It used to be Eric Clapton,...but, now,...it's definitely RRR314159,...
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: GoneFishing on July 21, 2016, 04:59:02 AM
RRR314159 IS GOD.

Why not extraterrestrial ?
... Or do you want to eat his brain like you did it with DAVE and JAPHETH ???
 :icon_eek: :icon_eek: :shock:
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Zen on July 21, 2016, 05:02:04 AM
Quote from: VERTOGRAD IS AN EXTRATERRESTRIAL, TOO
... Or do you want to eat his brain like you did it with DAVE and JAPHETH ???

...So,...you know about that,...Dang,...:dazzled:
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: GoneFishing on July 21, 2016, 05:08:58 AM
Quote from: VERTOGRAD IS AN EXTRATERRESTRIAL, TOO
... Or do you want to eat his brain like you did it with DAVE and JAPHETH ???

...So,...you know about that,...Dang,...:dazzled:

Why only extratterrestrial ?
Top Sports Swimsuit Illustrated 2016 Hot Extraterrestrial Drunk Naked Chick !!!
 :biggrin: :biggrin: :t
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Zen on July 21, 2016, 05:10:59 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CA0FILpUsAA55D5.jpg)

...By the way, DON'T GOOGLE THAT !!!   Top Sport Swimsuit Illustrated 2016 Hot Extraterrestrial Drunk Naked Chik (https://www.google.com/search?q=extraterrestrial+humor&biw=1280&bih=923&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbvZOi3oLOAhVW8WMKHb-KDMIQ_AUIBigB#tbm=isch&q=Top+Sport+Swimsuit+Illustrated+2016+Hot+Extraterrestrial+Drunk+Naked+Chik)
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: GoneFishing on July 21, 2016, 05:20:16 AM
BTW I wanted to ask you if ERO VIDEO CHAT is prohibited in your public library somewhere in California ?
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Zen on July 21, 2016, 05:21:24 AM
ERO VIDEO CHAT ??? Don't know. But, it sounds evil.

...OK,...I just googled it,...FUNNY,...
If there were any naked extraterrestrials here, I'd be all over that,...:bgrin:
...And,...of course,...there would be a lot of enthusiasm from the other library patrons (and their kids),...
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: GoneFishing on July 21, 2016, 05:30:12 AM
Please , tell us how naked extraterrestrials of your dreams look like and possibly we'll fix the problem  ;)
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Zen on July 21, 2016, 05:34:50 AM
Just a suggestion here: We should probably switch to 128-bit encryption about now,...or, maybe,...the TOR Network,...:bgrin:
THE MODERATORS ARE WATCHING !!!
...And, yes,...the Moderators are extraterrestrials,...
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: GoneFishing on July 21, 2016, 05:40:11 AM
YEAH, don't be afraid of extraterrestrials - they're above all that sh*t
NSA has already enough of it  too
so  MODERATORS  will do the dirty job  :biggrin:
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Raistlin on July 21, 2016, 03:45:17 PM
Quote
As for the "void" - apparently there's a region about a billion ly in diameter, in the constellation Eridanus (Southern Hemisphere), which has very little matter (galaxies, dust) in it. (Dark matter, and dark energy, are probably both brown - the color of bullsh*t - so you can ignore those.) There's another void in roughly the opposite direction (Northern Hemisphere, near Bootes) which is a bit bigger. In both cases telescopes (light and radio) seem to see less matter; that's a meaningful observation. The CMB is colder for this Eridanus void, but not for the other (sometimes called the "Giant Void") which indicates you can ignore that data. The presence of voids is not a "mystery" - why shouldn't there be voids? It's just an apparent fact, for which we may someday (a billion years from now) have an explanation. If, indeed, it's still a "fact" then.

Thanks for the explanation rrr - why did'nt the chap at NASA just say that. ::)  Knew you could beat them at it - LOL
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on July 22, 2016, 02:19:10 AM
why did'nt the chap at NASA just say that.

Well, according to reliable 'net resources it's because NASA has been taken over by extraterrestrial porn stars. Evidently they had to leave their home planet in Eridanus because it was consumed by the expanding Giant Void. Haven't verified this information myself but it seems logical. After all if they were extraterrestrial physicists, you'd expect them to be able to explain this stuff better.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: anunitu on July 22, 2016, 06:06:19 AM
Sooooooooooo,smart people(looking at you) are extraterrestrial? Explains a LOT.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: rrr314159 on July 22, 2016, 07:48:05 AM
According to Francis Crick's panspermia hypothesis, all life on Earth is extraterrestrial (came from space spores). According to various nuts all humans are extraterrestrial - usually genetically modified apes, as in Arthur C. Clarke's 2001. According to all the other animals, humans are extra terrestrials - meaning, superfluous. They could do without us just fine. And I've met quite a few people who felt they should have been born on some other planet, because they didn't fit in here. (All of those were, as it so happens, smart.) On the contrary, I feel I'm the only real terrestrial - all the rest of you are mere "extra"s :biggrin:
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Zen on July 22, 2016, 08:18:42 AM
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/a3/78/13/a37813ee17c6648dd94b24bca3ee361c.jpg)
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: anunitu on July 22, 2016, 09:29:59 AM
My best selfie 
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d5/Marvin_the_Martian.svg/594px-Marvin_the_Martian.svg.png)
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: anunitu on July 22, 2016, 09:32:08 AM
Also these guys are on the JOB.
 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/c0/b1/0d/c0b10dd2cb2f906f90270e7249489450.jpg)
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: xanatose on July 23, 2016, 08:26:35 PM
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/a3/78/13/a37813ee17c6648dd94b24bca3ee361c.jpg)
Nor does it means that it doesn't exist.

If you are bat shit crazy a sane person will seem bat shit crazy to you.
but
If you are sane, a bat shit crazy person will appear to be bat shit crazy.


You never know who is the one bat shit crazy. Too many scholars (parrots with a degree) impersonating scientist nowadays. Some even are scientist on other areas.


Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: hutch-- on July 24, 2016, 07:19:24 AM
 :biggrin:

> Some even are scientist on other areas.

Yeah, experts in verbal bovine fertiliser,amipulation.  :P
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Raistlin on May 11, 2018, 03:50:20 PM
I decided to amend my crackpot theory on dark-matter slightly (as in totally  :biggrin:).
So here goes, take a deep breath.....

A star is constantly balancing its existence between two forces. The gravity of its own weight trying to crush it and
its nuclear fusion engine trying to blow it apart.   The problem for the star comes in the form of its fuel for fusion
(hydrogen) being inevitably depleted. When this happens, the star attempts to fuse larger and larger weights of atomic
material instead (starting with helium). Eventually the star attempts to fuse materials with high atomic weights (metals).
Specifically an attempt to fuse iron, produces the effect of pseudo-stalling the fusion engine.  Gravity starts crushing the star.
If the mass of the star is large enough, the reaction to the force of gravity can be explosive. Think super and hyper-nova.
The remains of some supernovas, but especially hyper novas are known as quasars (emitting black-holes). Quasars later
quiet down as your run of the mill, black-hole or super-massive black hole.

So what ? - I'am thinking that during the star's last moments - its factually correct to assume rare elements are being produced.
Could the stuff of dark matter and black holes not be similar rare materials, produced in the furnaces of fusion as the last gasp of a
dying super massive star.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: hutch-- on May 11, 2018, 04:02:52 PM
He he, I gather there is all sorts of crap floating around out there but collecting it would be no joy, even if you could travel that far. Think of this, you could add to the periodic table if you could find it and even redefine the notion of what is an element. The catch is even if you could find something, it may be that dangerous or unstable that you cannot do anything with it.

Try this, an element that is so dense that put enough of it together and it would form a black hole, the inverse of radioactive, instead of going BANG when enough of it goes together, it collapses into a black hole that keeps sucking in everything around it.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: felipe on May 12, 2018, 02:54:10 AM
That may be true but knowing what's out there will help. Imaging an scenario where a interstellar war happens. If you aim into some volatile particle out there it will help to blow out the alien enemies near around... :badgrin:
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Raistlin on May 18, 2018, 04:58:18 AM
So this is Draakie (the wife's theory) on dark matter & energy:
PPS: patented just in case its proven correct in years to come.
The big bang expanded into a 'dead' universe that was dark
matter and dark energy. The fact of explosive expansion
dictates uniform implosive forces, sucking the outside
literately in. Therefore dark matter & dark energy is non
atomic (our understanding) matter. It doesn't behave as
we want to understand, because it isn't matter per se'.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Raistlin on May 25, 2018, 04:10:41 PM
New research reveals 5th force of nature. It seems that the discovery means that there are additional heavy particles
in atoms, that don't interact with electromagnetic forces. Therefore only with gravity. Dark Matter anyone ?

Normal human readable form : http://www.popsci.com.au/science/could-there-be-a-fifth-fundamental-force-of-nature,420089
see original print discovery : https://www.nature.com/news/has-a-hungarian-physics-lab-found-a-fifth-force-of-nature-1.19957?dom=pscau&src=syn
see confirming paper : https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.071803
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: K_F on May 25, 2018, 04:32:27 PM
As we cannot see an atom yet (never mind an electron/positron) and we infer particles by picking up the results of smashing things together. This plus the duality theory and it is possible that they're barking up the wrong tree (K_Fs world) as there are most likely infinitely different particles/wave frequencies that can be extracted by smashing things at different energy levels.
Maybe the particles/waves are not even there and only appear when you poke it with a red hot energy stick - you're seeing your own energy  ;)
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Raistlin on October 17, 2018, 04:53:53 AM
So the universe expanding might end up in
SERIOUS contraction down the line OR not.
https://www.livescience.com/63820-dark-energy-changing-universe.html
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: hutch-- on October 17, 2018, 11:21:24 AM
Something I have picked up is that areas in the visible universe that with older telescopes looked like there was nothing in those areas have, with the use of the Hubble telescope, been looked at with much higher magnification and the areas that we used to see as empty just look like the rest of the universe. Now this leaves us with what sounds like a contradictory conclusion, we know from the observable red shift that the viewed universe is accelerating in the rate of its expansion yet when we look at empty areas at high enough magnification, it appears to go on forever. Now this implies that the expanding universe looks like a steady state.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Siekmanski on October 17, 2018, 11:42:55 AM
I think it depends on the angle between the origin ( big bang ) and the point of view angle from the hubble telescope in relation to the observed "empty" parts in space.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Raistlin on October 18, 2018, 04:47:46 AM
Observation is science's go to proof of
everything.  As long as your data holds
up to scrutiny. Thats what I love about
the Masm32 forum....laundry will be,
proverbialy aired. Facts are eventually
facts. Bet on it. Ever heard of a place
where you can be you, and add to
humanity without toooooo much fuss?
Then this is it! Yes I am probably over
selling stuff, but honestly (why do ppl
use that word, it insinuates deception)
I know I'am home.   
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: K_F on October 19, 2018, 05:29:40 AM
we know from the observable red shift that the viewed universe is accelerating in the rate of its expansion yet when we look at empty areas at high enough magnification, it appears to go on forever. Now this implies that the expanding universe looks like a steady state.
Here's a thought.

Gravitational Lensing produces red-shift.
So we have light flying around millions of objects, galaxies..etc etc - all of these producing Gravitaional Lensing and Red-Shift where ever you look.
And also the same thing with the Cosmic Background Noise.

Don't take what so called 'scientists' say for granted... One must do one's own thinking to find the basic flaws that can destroy careers and funding.
;)
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: hutch-- on October 19, 2018, 05:49:15 AM
You are reasonably safe with how a red shift works as it is learnt by example from sources on this planet but the problems occur when you try and apply it to locations and distances of massive magnitude as it is really hard (read impossible[at the moment]) to get out there and test it. It may be consistent with what we know on this planet but there may be other factors that we have no reliable way of knowing due to distance and size.

Now the Hubble data opens a new window on theoretical cosmology in that it gives the idea that the closer you look (with ever more powerful telescopes) the bigger the universe appears to be which leaves open the question, is the universe infinite ? I did a term of Cosmology analysis long long ago and evidence was pretty thin on the ground, the red shift being about the best of a very poor lot.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Raistlin on October 26, 2018, 04:52:35 AM
Yeahhhh new (old, but young) PULSAR : https://www.space.com/42235-youngest-pulsar-ever-discovery-kes-75.html
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Raistlin on November 09, 2018, 04:45:39 PM
We're all going to die ! - asteroid collision imminent !  :exclaim:

So starting this December, until 75 years from now = boom the end  :icon_mrgreen:
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Phaethon-asteroid-going-to-make-an-impact-with-Earth-on-December-17th
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: jj2007 on November 09, 2018, 06:56:52 PM
Quote
According to NASA it won’t hit us in the next 500 years

Let's hope they don't use the standard CRT REAL8 precision :P
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: xanatose on February 27, 2019, 01:50:26 AM
No worries, pretty sure I will be dead by then.

Unless I find a way to become full cyborg  :lol:
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: guga on March 06, 2019, 04:46:26 AM
help, help, help.. It´s a bird ! It´s a plane ! It´s a UFO !...No...  It´s super upper dupper Phaethon. Just hope it fall over the Congress (on a business day) :icon_rolleyes: :icon_rolleyes: :icon_rolleyes: :greensml: :greensml: :greensml: :greensml:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/3200phaethonX100.gif)
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Raistlin on March 06, 2019, 04:08:30 PM
Potential NEO (Near Earth Object ?) - :t or hutch-- back from his alien vacation. He did say he's from the down under...
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: hutch-- on March 06, 2019, 04:22:25 PM
 :biggrin:

Why do you think Martians are welcome here ?  :P
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: guga on March 06, 2019, 07:51:12 PM
:biggrin:

Why do you think Martians are welcome here ?  :P
:greensml: :greensml: :greensml: :greensml: :greensml: :greensml: :greensml:
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Raistlin on April 11, 2019, 05:52:12 PM
First ever Black-hole photograph - looks like a doughnut on fire:
https://www.iol.co.za/news/world/see-black-hole-for-the-first-time-in-images-from-event-horizon-telescope-20901285
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: TimoVJL on April 11, 2019, 06:48:47 PM
Photograph  :icon_confused:
First-ever picture of a black hole unveiled (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/first-picture-black-hole-revealed-m87-event-horizon-telescope-astrophysics/)
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: AW on April 12, 2019, 02:24:29 PM
After looking at the dunot look alike blackhole and now looking at her girlish happy face I have no doubts that the story is real.  :badgrin:

(https://www.dropbox.com/s/8i60sjlqtx8h4bb/blackhole.png?dl=1)
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: hutch-- on April 12, 2019, 02:37:58 PM
 :biggrin:

I do like the disk array. Looks like a nice lady.
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Raistlin on April 12, 2019, 03:00:59 PM
5 PetaBytes ?! WOW - she obviously doesn't know any ASM, must be using some serious bloatware  ;)
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: felipe on April 12, 2019, 11:00:06 PM
i'm pretty sure she worked in the lord of the rings special effects staff... :idea:  :icon_mrgreen:
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: Vortex on April 13, 2019, 03:33:38 AM
Quote
Jean-Pierre Luminet’s 1979 black hole visualization. Using computer data, he drew several thousand black dots on a white sheet by hand and took a photographic negative to get the final image. Gas racing around the black hole toward us is brighter from a Doppler boost. The part of the gas disk behind the black hole is visible above it, because its light has been bent by the black hole’s gravity

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/here-s-what-scientists-think-black-hole-looks
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: TimoVJL on April 13, 2019, 03:50:12 AM
In message #144, that man with red face is solving somekind of a red hole or brown hole mystery ::) or just be shame :icon_confused:
A theory of Red Matter or Brown Matter ::)
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: K_F on April 13, 2019, 06:29:58 AM
I'm skeptical... it looks like space dust and mirrors.

 - Besides our dear working on the algorithm to draw a fuzzy picture, we have a 'nerd' type 850,000 lines of code (out of 900,000 lines) to get this fuzzy picture.
- 850,000 lines  :shock: WTF was he doing. Copy-n-Paste.. He must have known what he was doing.  :bgrin:
- A lot of media shock and awe, not to mention the immediate danger to us being swallowed up whole.  :shock:
- There sounds like there was a lot of in-house fighting on this project - Abandon or not to Abandon.
- A suggestion of a Nobel prize for a fuzzy picture.

Let's have a look at the money - We're they going to abandon the project ?
You put a lot of time and money into this, you must have something to show for it.... even if it is fuzzy
Make a media storm about it, adding a bit of danger. (Nothing sucks like a black hole)
It's starting to sound like another great scam we have experienced.

Real scientists do science for many reasons, least of all media attention.
This thing is far away... there's a lot of gravitational lensing before the waves/particles get to us - this could just be an anomaly.
There's supposed to be a black hole at the centre of our galaxy.... a lot closer, why are we not looking there - to close for comfort maybe - maybe Hubble will prove black holes don't exist, so it's easier to place a 'black hole' so far away, and say it is one.  ;)
We still don't understand gravity (ok we know it sucks), so to claim a 'black hole' is absurd... back to the money and media attention.
 :t
Title: Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
Post by: AW on June 01, 2019, 05:56:16 PM
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/2810z4f9fqw5uy9/printf.jpg?dl=1)

 :joking: :joking: :joking: