Author Topic: A Quack theory on Dark Matter  (Read 10188 times)

nidud

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1371
    • https://github.com/nidud/asmc
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #15 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

rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #16 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"
I am NaN ;)

Raistlin

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 238
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #17 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

rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #18 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
I am NaN ;)

nidud

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1371
    • https://github.com/nidud/asmc
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #19 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

rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #20 on: April 06, 2016, 04:38:15 AM »
nidud: "... someone ..."

- Who?
I am NaN ;)

HSE

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • <AMD>< 7-32>
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #21 on: April 06, 2016, 05:59:57 AM »
The same who make the simulations?


Sorry  8)

nidud

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1371
    • https://github.com/nidud/asmc
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #22 on: April 06, 2016, 07:39:46 AM »
 :biggrin:

rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #23 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 ***
I am NaN ;)

HSE

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • <AMD>< 7-32>
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #24 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.

 


nidud

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1371
    • https://github.com/nidud/asmc
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #25 on: April 06, 2016, 09:31:13 AM »
The programmer is simulated and the stack is eternal: there is no beginning or end  :P

rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #26 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 ...
I am NaN ;)

Siekmanski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1094
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #27 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".

rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #28 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?
I am NaN ;)

Siekmanski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1094
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #29 on: April 06, 2016, 10:42:29 AM »
Yeah, but I have to go back in time first to find my hair back.  :biggrin: