Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Dark matter experiments

Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 1:15:23 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Pretty good article on scientific American. I do get a tickle when people state 'we've fpund it'. We have inferred it. As of yet, we can't observe, measure, or replicate it (still hypothetical).

I believe in it and dark energy. We are just nascent on measuring at this time. I posted because I'm glad to see physicists trying alternate methods.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 2:17:24 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 1:15:23 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Pretty good article on scientific American. I do get a tickle when people state 'we've fpund it'. We have inferred it. As of yet, we can't observe, measure, or replicate it (still hypothetical).

I believe in it and dark energy. We are just nascent on measuring at this time. I posted because I'm glad to see physicists trying alternate methods.

The way I see General Relativity in that it doesn't marry with Quantum field theory is the same way in how it doesn't marry with our observations of large structures such as galaxies. I think there is another theory of gravity in which the effects of gravity in large scale structures works as opposed to there being dark matter.

Does that even make sense?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 2:29:01 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 2:17:24 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/13/2016 1:15:23 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Pretty good article on scientific American. I do get a tickle when people state 'we've fpund it'. We have inferred it. As of yet, we can't observe, measure, or replicate it (still hypothetical).

I believe in it and dark energy. We are just nascent on measuring at this time. I posted because I'm glad to see physicists trying alternate methods.

The way I see General Relativity in that it doesn't marry with Quantum field theory is the same way in how it doesn't marry with our observations of large structures such as galaxies. I think there is another theory of gravity in which the effects of gravity in large scale structures works as opposed to there being dark matter.

Does that even make sense?

kinda, but it's hard to describe vs illustrate. I may have misunderstood but are you looking at it from dark energy holding the galaxy in place ... with dark energy fueling the continued expansion?

If I misunderstood what you meant I apologize. It kinda sounds like supergravity, or possibly even the Higgs field
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 3:16:02 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 2:29:01 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 2:17:24 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/13/2016 1:15:23 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Pretty good article on scientific American. I do get a tickle when people state 'we've fpund it'. We have inferred it. As of yet, we can't observe, measure, or replicate it (still hypothetical).

I believe in it and dark energy. We are just nascent on measuring at this time. I posted because I'm glad to see physicists trying alternate methods.

The way I see General Relativity in that it doesn't marry with Quantum field theory is the same way in how it doesn't marry with our observations of large structures such as galaxies. I think there is another theory of gravity in which the effects of gravity in large scale structures works as opposed to there being dark matter.

Does that even make sense?

kinda, but it's hard to describe vs illustrate. I may have misunderstood but are you looking at it from dark energy holding the galaxy in place ... with dark energy fueling the continued expansion?

If I misunderstood what you meant I apologize. It kinda sounds like supergravity, or possibly even the Higgs field

What I mean is that the way gravity behaves in quantum field theory does not behave the same way in General Relativity. In other words, once we scale up from what we call the micro to the macro level, our explanations are different. So, if we scale up again to large scale structures such as galaxies, gravity tends to behave differently once again. Make sense?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 3:19:11 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 3:16:02 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/13/2016 2:29:01 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 2:17:24 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/13/2016 1:15:23 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Pretty good article on scientific American. I do get a tickle when people state 'we've fpund it'. We have inferred it. As of yet, we can't observe, measure, or replicate it (still hypothetical).

I believe in it and dark energy. We are just nascent on measuring at this time. I posted because I'm glad to see physicists trying alternate methods.

The way I see General Relativity in that it doesn't marry with Quantum field theory is the same way in how it doesn't marry with our observations of large structures such as galaxies. I think there is another theory of gravity in which the effects of gravity in large scale structures works as opposed to there being dark matter.

Does that even make sense?

kinda, but it's hard to describe vs illustrate. I may have misunderstood but are you looking at it from dark energy holding the galaxy in place ... with dark energy fueling the continued expansion?

If I misunderstood what you meant I apologize. It kinda sounds like supergravity, or possibly even the Higgs field

What I mean is that the way gravity behaves in quantum field theory does not behave the same way in General Relativity. In other words, once we scale up from what we call the micro to the macro level, our explanations are different. So, if we scale up again to large scale structures such as galaxies, gravity tends to behave differently once again. Make sense?

To expand on that, gravity has created massive black holes at the center of each galaxy, so if we look at a galaxy in it's whole, perhaps there is an explanation for the phenomenon of a black hole coupled with the combined effects of all the billions of stars contained within the galaxy that explains what we observe.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 4:12:36 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 3:19:11 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/13/2016 3:16:02 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/13/2016 2:29:01 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 2:17:24 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/13/2016 1:15:23 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Pretty good article on scientific American. I do get a tickle when people state 'we've fpund it'. We have inferred it. As of yet, we can't observe, measure, or replicate it (still hypothetical).

I believe in it and dark energy. We are just nascent on measuring at this time. I posted because I'm glad to see physicists trying alternate methods.

The way I see General Relativity in that it doesn't marry with Quantum field theory is the same way in how it doesn't marry with our observations of large structures such as galaxies. I think there is another theory of gravity in which the effects of gravity in large scale structures works as opposed to there being dark matter.

Does that even make sense?

kinda, but it's hard to describe vs illustrate. I may have misunderstood but are you looking at it from dark energy holding the galaxy in place ... with dark energy fueling the continued expansion?

If I misunderstood what you meant I apologize. It kinda sounds like supergravity, or possibly even the Higgs field

What I mean is that the way gravity behaves in quantum field theory does not behave the same way in General Relativity. In other words, once we scale up from what we call the micro to the macro level, our explanations are different. So, if we scale up again to large scale structures such as galaxies, gravity tends to behave differently once again. Make sense?

To expand on that, gravity has created massive black holes at the center of each galaxy, so if we look at a galaxy in it's whole, perhaps there is an explanation for the phenomenon of a black hole coupled with the combined effects of all the billions of stars contained within the galaxy that explains what we observe.

Yes; the supermassive black hole. One contention is M theory if you are familiar with it. It started as string in the 60-70's, was discredited because the 10 dimensions didn't account for mass, then expanded to superstring with 11 dimensions but that couldn't account for non-locality and then evolved to m theory which gets to multiverse and a theory that supermassive black holes are the resultant of 'Branes' colliding.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 4:24:03 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 4:12:36 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 3:19:11 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/13/2016 3:16:02 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/13/2016 2:29:01 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 2:17:24 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/13/2016 1:15:23 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Pretty good article on scientific American. I do get a tickle when people state 'we've fpund it'. We have inferred it. As of yet, we can't observe, measure, or replicate it (still hypothetical).

I believe in it and dark energy. We are just nascent on measuring at this time. I posted because I'm glad to see physicists trying alternate methods.

The way I see General Relativity in that it doesn't marry with Quantum field theory is the same way in how it doesn't marry with our observations of large structures such as galaxies. I think there is another theory of gravity in which the effects of gravity in large scale structures works as opposed to there being dark matter.

Does that even make sense?

kinda, but it's hard to describe vs illustrate. I may have misunderstood but are you looking at it from dark energy holding the galaxy in place ... with dark energy fueling the continued expansion?

If I misunderstood what you meant I apologize. It kinda sounds like supergravity, or possibly even the Higgs field

What I mean is that the way gravity behaves in quantum field theory does not behave the same way in General Relativity. In other words, once we scale up from what we call the micro to the macro level, our explanations are different. So, if we scale up again to large scale structures such as galaxies, gravity tends to behave differently once again. Make sense?

To expand on that, gravity has created massive black holes at the center of each galaxy, so if we look at a galaxy in it's whole, perhaps there is an explanation for the phenomenon of a black hole coupled with the combined effects of all the billions of stars contained within the galaxy that explains what we observe.

Yes; the supermassive black hole. One contention is M theory if you are familiar with it. It started as string in the 60-70's, was discredited because the 10 dimensions didn't account for mass, then expanded to superstring with 11 dimensions but that couldn't account for non-locality and then evolved to m theory which gets to multiverse and a theory that supermassive black holes are the resultant of 'Branes' colliding.

Yeah, all the math for that looks great on paper but we haven't observed any such thing.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 4:35:10 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 4:24:03 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/13/2016 4:12:36 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 3:19:11 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/13/2016 3:16:02 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/13/2016 2:29:01 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 2:17:24 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/13/2016 1:15:23 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Pretty good article on scientific American. I do get a tickle when people state 'we've fpund it'. We have inferred it. As of yet, we can't observe, measure, or replicate it (still hypothetical).

I believe in it and dark energy. We are just nascent on measuring at this time. I posted because I'm glad to see physicists trying alternate methods.

The way I see General Relativity in that it doesn't marry with Quantum field theory is the same way in how it doesn't marry with our observations of large structures such as galaxies. I think there is another theory of gravity in which the effects of gravity in large scale structures works as opposed to there being dark matter.

Does that even make sense?

kinda, but it's hard to describe vs illustrate. I may have misunderstood but are you looking at it from dark energy holding the galaxy in place ... with dark energy fueling the continued expansion?

If I misunderstood what you meant I apologize. It kinda sounds like supergravity, or possibly even the Higgs field

What I mean is that the way gravity behaves in quantum field theory does not behave the same way in General Relativity. In other words, once we scale up from what we call the micro to the macro level, our explanations are different. So, if we scale up again to large scale structures such as galaxies, gravity tends to behave differently once again. Make sense?

To expand on that, gravity has created massive black holes at the center of each galaxy, so if we look at a galaxy in it's whole, perhaps there is an explanation for the phenomenon of a black hole coupled with the combined effects of all the billions of stars contained within the galaxy that explains what we observe.

Yes; the supermassive black hole. One contention is M theory if you are familiar with it. It started as string in the 60-70's, was discredited because the 10 dimensions didn't account for mass, then expanded to superstring with 11 dimensions but that couldn't account for non-locality and then evolved to m theory which gets to multiverse and a theory that supermassive black holes are the resultant of 'Branes' colliding.

Yeah, all the math for that looks great on paper but we haven't observed any such thing.

That's why I posted this article. It's good to see those in the field frustrated and trying new things.

Also the shlt is interesting even if, in my opinion, what we think we know is WAY overstated.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 8:25:39 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 5:41:30 PM, keithprosser wrote:
For those interested in this stuff, modified gravity type theories are an alternative to dark matter theories.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

So glad you used theory. Any who reads, studies and try's to understand knows there is so much more to learn than what we think we know.

Thanks for the contribution.
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 1:11:33 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
The elusiveness of dark matter/energy makes me skeptical. However, since I reject the notion that the universe is "fine-tuned" for life, it seems logical that 95% of the particles/fields in the universe would be "junk", the same way that 99% of our genome doesn't code for anything. The Big Bang spat out lots of stuff, but only a small portion of it was in any way conducive to forming atoms, stars, and living organisms.

I would further guess that dark matter and dark energy represent opposite ends of a spectrum. Dark matter is redundant particles, which interact with no force fields except gravity. Dark energy is redundant force field, which permeates the universe like the Higgs field but interacts with no particles except its own force-carriers; some of these particles repel each other, which further excites their field, causing more repulsion at an exponentially increasing rate, which forces the universe apart.

Of course, my background is in biology, so I'm completely guessing here.
Annnaxim
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 5:38:57 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 2:17:24 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

The way I see General Relativity in that it doesn't marry with Quantum field theory is the same way in how it doesn't marry with our observations of large structures such as galaxies. I think there is another theory of gravity in which the effects of gravity in large scale structures works as opposed to there being dark matter.

Does that even make sense?

Do you maybe mean MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) or something similar?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 6:04:41 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 5:38:57 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 10/13/2016 2:17:24 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

The way I see General Relativity in that it doesn't marry with Quantum field theory is the same way in how it doesn't marry with our observations of large structures such as galaxies. I think there is another theory of gravity in which the effects of gravity in large scale structures works as opposed to there being dark matter.

Does that even make sense?

Do you maybe mean MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) or something similar?

Perhaps, something a little different. MOND is based on Newtonian physics, which does't apply to Quantum field dynamics or General Relativity, hence there may be some other theory that has nothing to do with Quantum field theory, General Relativity or Newtonian physics that explain the gravity fields contained within large scale structures such as galaxies. It may be something completely new, but that's just pure speculation.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 10:35:30 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 1:15:23 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Pretty good article on scientific American. I do get a tickle when people state 'we've fpund it'. We have inferred it. As of yet, we can't observe, measure, or replicate it (still hypothetical).

I believe in it and dark energy. We are just nascent on measuring at this time. I posted because I'm glad to see physicists trying alternate methods.

Why not ask Dummel if he thinks dark matter is a proven fact, he argued it was last year (I argued it was not, but still speculative), go on ask him...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 11:52:59 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 10:35:30 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/13/2016 1:15:23 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Pretty good article on scientific American. I do get a tickle when people state 'we've fpund it'. We have inferred it. As of yet, we can't observe, measure, or replicate it (still hypothetical).

I believe in it and dark energy. We are just nascent on measuring at this time. I posted because I'm glad to see physicists trying alternate methods.

Why not ask Dummel if he thinks dark matter is a proven fact, he argued it was last year (I argued it was not, but still speculative), go on ask him...

Ask Harry if he is lying.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 2:00:48 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 11:52:59 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/15/2016 10:35:30 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/13/2016 1:15:23 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Pretty good article on scientific American. I do get a tickle when people state 'we've fpund it'. We have inferred it. As of yet, we can't observe, measure, or replicate it (still hypothetical).

I believe in it and dark energy. We are just nascent on measuring at this time. I posted because I'm glad to see physicists trying alternate methods.

Why not ask Dummel if he thinks dark matter is a proven fact, he argued it was last year (I argued it was not, but still speculative), go on ask him...

Ask Harry if he is lying.

I suspect (I haven't checked) that the site still has a complete record of our discussion about this, given that you've implied I'm lying, let me take a look...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 4:18:50 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 2:00:48 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/15/2016 11:52:59 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/15/2016 10:35:30 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/13/2016 1:15:23 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Pretty good article on scientific American. I do get a tickle when people state 'we've fpund it'. We have inferred it. As of yet, we can't observe, measure, or replicate it (still hypothetical).

I believe in it and dark energy. We are just nascent on measuring at this time. I posted because I'm glad to see physicists trying alternate methods.

Why not ask Dummel if he thinks dark matter is a proven fact, he argued it was last year (I argued it was not, but still speculative), go on ask him...

Ask Harry if he is lying.

I suspect (I haven't checked) that the site still has a complete record of our discussion about this, given that you've implied I'm lying, let me take a look...

Go right ahead and look, Harry. You'll find that what I said was that the effects of something that has been labeled as dark matter certainly have been observed. Other than that, you're confused, as usual.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 5:46:15 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 4:18:50 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/16/2016 2:00:48 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/15/2016 11:52:59 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/15/2016 10:35:30 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/13/2016 1:15:23 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Pretty good article on scientific American. I do get a tickle when people state 'we've fpund it'. We have inferred it. As of yet, we can't observe, measure, or replicate it (still hypothetical).

I believe in it and dark energy. We are just nascent on measuring at this time. I posted because I'm glad to see physicists trying alternate methods.

Why not ask Dummel if he thinks dark matter is a proven fact, he argued it was last year (I argued it was not, but still speculative), go on ask him...

Ask Harry if he is lying.

I suspect (I haven't checked) that the site still has a complete record of our discussion about this, given that you've implied I'm lying, let me take a look...

Go right ahead and look, Harry. You'll find that what I said was that the effects of something that has been labeled as dark matter certainly have been observed. Other than that, you're confused, as usual.

Luckily for you this site's features are abysmal and it isn't possible to search the site, individual forums or one's own posts - I'll let this rest for now.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 6:22:33 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 5:46:15 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/16/2016 4:18:50 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/16/2016 2:00:48 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/15/2016 11:52:59 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/15/2016 10:35:30 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/13/2016 1:15:23 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Pretty good article on scientific American. I do get a tickle when people state 'we've fpund it'. We have inferred it. As of yet, we can't observe, measure, or replicate it (still hypothetical).

I believe in it and dark energy. We are just nascent on measuring at this time. I posted because I'm glad to see physicists trying alternate methods.

Why not ask Dummel if he thinks dark matter is a proven fact, he argued it was last year (I argued it was not, but still speculative), go on ask him...

Ask Harry if he is lying.

I suspect (I haven't checked) that the site still has a complete record of our discussion about this, given that you've implied I'm lying, let me take a look...

Go right ahead and look, Harry. You'll find that what I said was that the effects of something that has been labeled as dark matter certainly have been observed. Other than that, you're confused, as usual.

Luckily for you this site's features are abysmal and it isn't possible to search the site, individual forums or one's own posts - I'll let this rest for now.

Focus on the subject matter, Harry. Do you think, from your in-depth understanding of General Relativity and Quantum field theory that another theory of gravity may be required to explain large scale structures?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 6:38:45 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 6:22:33 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/16/2016 5:46:15 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/16/2016 4:18:50 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/16/2016 2:00:48 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/15/2016 11:52:59 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/15/2016 10:35:30 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/13/2016 1:15:23 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Pretty good article on scientific American. I do get a tickle when people state 'we've fpund it'. We have inferred it. As of yet, we can't observe, measure, or replicate it (still hypothetical).

I believe in it and dark energy. We are just nascent on measuring at this time. I posted because I'm glad to see physicists trying alternate methods.

Why not ask Dummel if he thinks dark matter is a proven fact, he argued it was last year (I argued it was not, but still speculative), go on ask him...

Ask Harry if he is lying.

I suspect (I haven't checked) that the site still has a complete record of our discussion about this, given that you've implied I'm lying, let me take a look...

Go right ahead and look, Harry. You'll find that what I said was that the effects of something that has been labeled as dark matter certainly have been observed. Other than that, you're confused, as usual.

Luckily for you this site's features are abysmal and it isn't possible to search the site, individual forums or one's own posts - I'll let this rest for now.

Focus on the subject matter, Harry. Do you think, from your in-depth understanding of General Relativity and Quantum field theory that another theory of gravity may be required to explain large scale structures?

I don't know, I wish I had the time and expertise to really grapple with it but I do not. Yes I have a good understanding of GR and its history and much of the math but I'm not equipped to provide a meaningful answer and my knowledge of quantum mechanics is timid compared to my knowledge of GR.

Having said that many leading physicists clearly think that something must be wrong with the current theories, one or both must be at some level, wrong.

It seems to hing on the problem of renormalization which I do not really understand.

I'll tell you DJR it is extremely interesting stuff, incredibly interesting. The way GR mathematically links space, time, mass, energy, inertia and gravitation is very very impressive and incredibly elegant.

I'm just unable to do more than try to follow the experts as and when I can.
Annnaxim
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 7:40:54 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 6:04:41 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/15/2016 5:38:57 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
Do you maybe mean MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) or something similar?

Perhaps, something a little different. MOND is based on Newtonian physics, which does't apply to Quantum field dynamics or General Relativity, hence there may be some other theory that has nothing to do with Quantum field theory, General Relativity or Newtonian physics that explain the gravity fields contained within large scale structures such as galaxies. It may be something completely new, but that's just pure speculation.

The Problem is empirical verification.
Most, if not all of the evidence we have for these gravitational anomalies is in regions of sparse matter. Unfortuneately, gravity is so ubiquitous in the universe, that is hard to find a spot neraby, where one could test new theories.
As I understand it, the best evidence wie have for Dark Matter is the (false colour) image of the Bullet Cluster (https://en.wikipedia.org...).
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 11:00:34 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
All the back and forths and people basically aping my OP: we got no clue. Lol

Back to the original: I'm glad those doing the research vs reading an article are letting go of past concepts and trying new avenues.