Author Topic: A Quack theory on Dark Matter  (Read 55825 times)

rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #30 on: April 06, 2016, 12:31:16 PM »
I'll write that into the plot
I am NaN ;)

hutch--

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9240
  • Mnemonic Driven API Grinder
    • The MASM32 SDK
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #31 on: April 06, 2016, 01:39:21 PM »
 :biggrin:
hutch at movsd dot com
http://www.masm32.com    :biggrin:  :skrewy:

Raistlin

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 543
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #32 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.
Are you pondering what I'm pondering? It's time to take over the world ! - let's use ASSEMBLY...

nidud

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2390
    • https://github.com/nidud/asmc
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #33 on: April 08, 2016, 07:50:25 AM »
deleted
« Last Edit: February 25, 2022, 11:25:25 AM by nidud »

rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #34 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
I am NaN ;)

Siekmanski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2506
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #35 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
Creative coders use backward thinking techniques as a strategy.

nidud

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2390
    • https://github.com/nidud/asmc
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #36 on: April 08, 2016, 09:56:02 PM »
deleted
« Last Edit: February 25, 2022, 11:25:36 AM by nidud »

rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #37 on: April 09, 2016, 04:00:26 AM »
Well you might as well check out Null Physics. 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
I am NaN ;)

nidud

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2390
    • https://github.com/nidud/asmc
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #38 on: April 09, 2016, 05:39:09 AM »
deleted
« Last Edit: February 25, 2022, 11:25:45 AM by nidud »

rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #39 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.
I am NaN ;)

jj2007

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12321
  • Assembler is fun ;-)
    • MasmBasic
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #40 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?

rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #41 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.
I am NaN ;)

nidud

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2390
    • https://github.com/nidud/asmc
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #42 on: April 10, 2016, 09:08:02 PM »
deleted
« Last Edit: February 25, 2022, 11:25:57 AM by nidud »

rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #43 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.


I am NaN ;)

nidud

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2390
    • https://github.com/nidud/asmc
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #44 on: April 11, 2016, 04:26:56 AM »
deleted
« Last Edit: February 25, 2022, 11:26:07 AM by nidud »