Dark matter and Dark energy

[DHamilton]

You're like a physics madlib - a bunch of vaguely topical terms jumbled together into almost grammatical sentences.

I recommend you check these out:

urls deleted/QUOTE]

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

Baez is a decent mathematician but not a physicist, and he certainly isn't a person to approach with an idea that threatens to destabilize his neat little world of Einsteinian pseudophysics that even Einstein himself began to doubt the validity of... evidenced by his letter to his lifelong confidante Michele Besso... writing:

I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that case *nothing* remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics.
-- Einstein in a 1954 letter to Besso, quoted from: "Subtle is the Lord", Abraham Pais, page 467.

Baez's brain is fried on continuum based physics... and you think he's a person to point out crackpots?

Euclid showed us all how to do science... how to arrive at certainties... Einstein didn't manage to do that... though Einstein certainly was familiar with Euclid.

And Einstein said

If Euclid failed to kindle your youthful enthusiasm, then you were not born to be a scientific thinker.

Everything depends upon at what level exists your postulates. If you postulate things that cannot be substantiated or that are contrary to data then you certainly may be applying logic but your results, your conclusions even if by some enormous miracle are found to be valid by some other means later, they still cannot be found to be vaild using the method you presented.

 

[sol invictus]

Someone forgot to take their meds, didn't they?

 

[BenHad]

More Dune

“And how can this be?
For he is the Kwisatz Haderach” (1984 “Dune”)

And the final Kwisatz Haderach, Duncan Idaho (2007 "Sandworms of Dune")

BenHad

 

[arthwollipot]

Someone forgot to take their meds, didn't they?

Someone's on the verge of getting their posts reported to the mods.

 

[The Man]

Is it your personal policy to show yourself to be an arrogant mannerless fool? The observation, experiment, etc. already exists. A data set can be looked at from a different angle ...the data is the same... the information yield may be much greater. The way science ought to be done... is by the use of logic, reason, and rational thinking. The universe is awash in data, and there's presently enough data to unify electromagnetism and gravity but you simply lack the ability to see the picture in the same way that an untrained person may be unable to see the 3D picture that is structured in a 'Magic Eye' print that you can buy at any Wal-Mart. But you hardly have any call to be both arrogant and vitrolic; such behavior only shows the lack of love that your parents had for you that they set you loose in the world without the requisite grace a civilized man or woman ought to have before they begin intellectual commerce in the world.

Tell me, please, why you're so nourished, as it were, with hatred? It would be interesting to understand what is in you that resists enlightenment. Or it would be interesting to know why you think an anonymous forum is the proper place to eruct your pernicious manners?

My toilet was awash with electromagnetic and gravitational data just this morning, but unfortunately that got flushed away along with the rest of the crap. Stringing together vaguely technical terms into even more vague conflated statements is nether logical or scientific. Unfortunately, your parents let you loose in the world without the requisite knowledge to understand that.

 

[Belz...]

No intent to dodge a question, sir. Starting with the fact that elementary charged particles that are overlapping in momentum space will behave opposite to the expectation of Coulomb's Law? First don't assume that which is not in evidence, like the assumption that Coulomb's Law applies to elementary charged particles that are at rest (or nearly so) with respect to each other. I even got Ephraim Fischbach at Purdue to admit there was no data that substantiated this commonly held belief. So, step one would be to examine the evolution of vector fields of elementary charges that are at rest with respect to each other but that have motion with respect to some other third particle in the universe... More specifically, let's examine the vector fields that evolve from the apparent locations of two deuterons (D1 and D2) that are say, 5e-10 cm from each other but which are at rest with respect to each other... and the vector fields we are interested in examining are those that are related to the motion any third particle in the universe that has some component of its motion that is normal to a plane that contains D1 and D2. At the intersection point of such vector fields we see the H vectors are anti-parallel (where 'anti-parallel' in this case means pointing in exactly opposite directions). The thesis is that such an intersection produces a null point or a low energy state, one might think of it heuristically as a 'hole' towards which quantum particles might fall...bearing in mind the axiom that all quanta obtain to the lowest energy state available. Consider that there are very many other 3rd particles in the universe that have some component of their motion that is normal to a plane that contains D1 and D2. The result is additive or a very 'deep' energy hole.. a super negentropic point towards which both D1 and D2 fall. So, D1 and D2 really are not attractively interactive but they are both falling towards a very low energy state location that exists because they are at rest with respect to each other. The implication is that the this is entirely electromagnetic and therefore that which was thought to be the 'nuclear strong force' is really this... Therefore gluons evaporate... as the fiction they always were. This is not a short range force but rather a short time scale availability force related to the average time of flight with respect to the mean free path. This is all implicit in Maxwell's equations. It isn't all that difficult... How did I know it... I worked it out...logical step by logical step...the way science ought to be done.

DHamilton

You again didn't answer my question.

How come those brainy scientists don't know all this ?

 

[Cuddles]

You again didn't answer my question.

How come those brainy scientists don't know all this ?

We do. We just hide all the real knowledge from the unsuspecting sheeple to prevent them from ever gaining true hapiness. Ever wondered why scientists have a reputation for being shy and antisocial? It's because if we spent too much time mingling with the unwashed masses we might accidentally let slip too much and allow them to realise that the entirety of modern science is just made up nonsense, and that therefore none of their modern technology actually works.

 

[DHamilton]

You again didn't answer my question.

How come those brainy scientists don't know all this ?

I did answer the question of how I know it, and showed you the steps and the logic coupled with the interpretation of the data. Parallel wires that are carrying the current in the same direction are attractively interactive. A pair of charge particles that are at rest with respect to each other are prosecuting parallel paths with respect to the motion of many other particles in the universe. Of course, if your brain is locked into the concept of an absolute space... which is the case with most people...then you and other people, including those 'brainy' scientists you mention wouldn't think of it.

DHamilton

 

[DHamilton]

We do. We just hide all the real knowledge from the unsuspecting sheeple to prevent them from ever gaining true hapiness. Ever wondered why scientists have a reputation for being shy and antisocial? It's because if we spent too much time mingling with the unwashed masses we might accidentally let slip too much and allow them to realise that the entirety of modern science is just made up nonsense, and that therefore none of their modern technology actually works.

You make the common mistake of conflating how we get toasters and cell phones and satellites and other advances with the pseudo knowledge held by astrophysicists. Bethe's ideas about how stars work have nothing to do with cell phones. It is just this sort of simpleminded thinking that gets people like you to stand up and praise all of modern science because you unwittingly think that scientists brought you the modern world when cars were brought to us by the likes of Henry Ford and airplanes by the likes of the Wright Brothers who were going against all the scientists in the world. I'm beginning to realize this Randi forum is a place for the same species of nitwits that I can find anywhere else on usenet. Thanks...

DHamilton

 

[iantresman]

A pair of charge particles that are at rest with respect to each other are prosecuting parallel paths with respect to the motion of many other particles in the universe.

.
Like two people sitting still on a moving train.

 

[edd]

You make the common mistake of conflating how we get toasters and cell phones and satellites and other advances with the pseudo knowledge held by astrophysicists. Bethe's ideas about how stars work have nothing to do with cell phones. It is just this sort of simpleminded thinking that gets people like you to stand up and praise all of modern science because you unwittingly think that scientists brought you the modern world when cars were brought to us by the likes of Henry Ford and airplanes by the likes of the Wright Brothers who were going against all the scientists in the world. I'm beginning to realize this Randi forum is a place for the same species of nitwits that I can find anywhere else on usenet. Thanks...

DHamilton

Satellites - stay in orbit by gravity. Gravity - that important thing that holds stars together.
Toasters - operate by transfer of heat through radiation and (to a lesser extent) convection. Radiation and convection - heat transfer mechanisms inside stars.
You have me stumped with cellphones though.

 

[Belz...]

I did answer the question of how I know it, and showed you the steps and the logic coupled with the interpretation of the data. Parallel wires that are carrying the current in the same direction are attractively interactive. A pair of charge particles that are at rest with respect to each other are prosecuting parallel paths with respect to the motion of many other particles in the universe. Of course, if your brain is locked into the concept of an absolute space... which is the case with most people...then you and other people, including those 'brainy' scientists you mention wouldn't think of it.

My brain isn't locked into anything. Answer the goddamned question:

How come those brainy scientists don't know all this ? And, if they do, what are you arguing for ?

 

[Ziggurat]

That's wishful thinking on your part. You've conflated a skewed tangential unrelated comment with the content of my post. There isn't a piece of data in the universe that demonstrates that elementary charged particles that are overlapping in the same momentum space will behave according to Coulomb's Law...

Uh, no. You're simply wrong. The fact that there is an additional Lorentz force doesn't make Coulomb attraction/repulsion go away.

In conductors in which charged particles are moving in the same direction (parallel current carrying wires, for example) the experimental data shows that they are strongly attractively interactive.

Oh, but Coulomb repulsion still most certainly applies. Consider electrons traveling in a copper wire. In the frame of the copper nuclei, the electrons still experience Coulomb repulsion, but they ALSO experience a Lorentz force from the magnetic field they generate. That additional force doesn't mean that the Coulomb repulsion is any less real. And if you look at the reference frame in which the electrons are stationary (no Lorentz force), you'll find that the positively charged nuclei have become Lorenz-contracted. The electrons still experience Coulomb repulsion from each other, but in their reference frame, the protons have a higher charge density, and so the Coulomb attraction of the wire becomes larger than the Coulomb repulsion of other electrons.

So it is that any two like charged fundamental particles which are in the same rest frame (recall that they have parallel velocities with respect to any third particle in the universe that has some component of its motion that is normal to a plane that contains both charged particles) are really two parallel current elements and so will be attractively interactive.

You can calculate the force in either a stationary or a moving reference frame. The components (Coulomb repulsion and Lorentz force attraction) vary with speed, but the Coulomb repulsion never goes away - in fact, it will increase if they're side-by-side, because the electric field of a single moving charge gets compressed along the direction of motion. The total force between two like charges travelling parallel is therefore ALWAYS repulsive. I've DONE the calculation, on this very message board in fact. I suggest you check it out:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2472242#post2472242

To deny what I'm saying is to deny the experimental data along with denying the most straightforward and reasonable interpretation of Maxwell's equations.

Uh, no. Dig through those calculations I did. If you can understand them, then maybe we can talk. But right now, what you're saying isn't even coherent.

Don't kill the messenger, guys... the message will live on because it happens to be the Truth

It has been my experience that "the Truth"^TM is rarely actually true.

 

[robinson]

Satellites - stay in orbit by gravity. Gravity - that important thing that holds stars together.

While this off topic drift is slightly amusing, it must be pointed out that satellites do NOT stay in orbit because of gravity. Gravity wants to bring them back down, or worse, away from the planet.

Thrusters, and a lot of calculations, keep them in orbit, not gravity.

 

[Reality Check]

While this off topic drift is slightly amusing, it must be pointed out that satellites do NOT stay in orbit because of gravity. Gravity wants to bring them back down, or worse, away from the planet.

Thrusters, and a lot of calculations, keep them in orbit, not gravity.

Slightly mistated robinson. Actually thrusters, and a lot of calculations, put them in orbit. Their kinetic energy keeps them in orbit against the force of gravity.

 

[BeAChooser]

Slightly mistated robinson. Actually thrusters, and a lot of calculations, put them in orbit. Their kinetic energy keeps them in orbit against the force of gravity.

Geeesh ... and all this time I thought it was strings held by the Great Puppet Master.

 

[sol invictus]

While this off topic drift is slightly amusing, it must be pointed out that satellites do NOT stay in orbit because of gravity. Gravity wants to bring them back down, or worse, away from the planet.

Thrusters, and a lot of calculations, keep them in orbit, not gravity.

That's interesting. So you think if we turned off gravity satellites would stay in orbit?

 

[robinson]

Well, I talked to my buddy who is a satellite scientist, and got the scoop. All modern satellites do have thrusters, but the situation with each kind of satellite is different. For those in high orbits, gravity does indeed rule their Universe, and they actually thrust them up and out of the GeoSynch when they run out of fuel. Where they orbit for far longer than any of us will live. Actually, far longer than our great great grandkids will live.

Low earth they have to thrust to maintain orbit.

And all satellites, including Geosynch ones, have to use thrusters to stay on course, or to avoid the elliptical orbit that Newton's Law demands they end up in.

So gravity does dictate the orbit, but calculations and thrusters dictate they stay in the orbit we want them in. I was crushed, yes crushed, to learn, right from the source, that yes it is gravity for all high orbit satellites. They will not be coming down any time soon, though he did admit if you go with the long view, gravity will bring them all back down to earth. Not keep them in orbit.

So it depends on how long a time period you look at. In the galactic time span, they will crash back into the atmosphere and burn up in the blink of an eye. From our human span, they are up there forever.

But I was correct, all modern sats have thrusters and use them to maintain the correct orbit. I was surprised to learn that for high and medium orbits, when the hydrazine runs low, they use it to park them in a higher orbit. Not enough thrust to bring them back down. But enough to get them out of the prime orbit area.

Which is prime real estate in space.

I learned many things, but none are related to dark energy, so enough off topic drifting from me.

 

[DHamilton]

Satellites - stay in orbit by gravity. Gravity - that important thing that holds stars together.
Toasters - operate by transfer of heat through radiation and (to a lesser extent) convection. Radiation and convection - heat transfer mechanisms inside stars.
You have me stumped with cellphones though.

I hope that you're just jiving... I meant that people tend to conflate the tweak and fiddle method of inventing and perfecting technologies with the activities of say, astrophysicists or cosmologists who call themselves scientists. People often say that science gave us this or science gave us that when really the trial and error method (tweak and fiddle) that is sometimes involved with making a hypothesis and testing it... is really what gave us all of our advanced technology. Building an accelerator and operating it and associated laboratories with a budget of tens of billions of dollars can be a mixture of science (building the technology and test equipment) and crackpottery (the inept interpretation of the data that is gathered). Few people realize that often very unscientific people are writing papers about black holes and about the nuclear strong force... this doesn't mean that they might not be excellent mathematicians...but they are almost universally completely inept at interpreting the data that they have otherwise so professionally and competently gathered. They are like higher functioning idiot savants. They have more than enough data to completely unify electromagnetism and gravity yet none have done it. So they lobby for more money to build bigger accelerators so that they can gather more mountains of data which they are still completely incompetent to correctly interpret.

I'm making this simple claim...that scientists really screwed up big right after Rutherford's experiments led them to conclude that the nuclei of atoms other than isotopes of hydrogen contain multiple protons in close proximity. This discovery imposed a tremendous conundrum on them... They saw that Coulomb's law applied to macro scale objects like charged up pith balls and they reverse extrapolated that behavior down to the behavior of quantum scale charged particles. That isn't wasn't any more valid than it would be to try and apply classical gas pressure laws down to the level of quanta. Gas pressure implies a continuous force applied across a continuous surface and the discovery that the world is composed of quantum particles means that the pressure isn't continuous but rather is composed of a finite number of discrete energy transferring impacts by gas atoms or molecules. And even the surface isn't continuous but rather is also composed of quantum particles that have gaps that allow gas molecules and atoms to escape.

People envisioned that two protons at rest would exert a repulsive force on each other text books are filled with problems that are presented to students so that they can apply the calculated forces at the proper angles and come up with answers that assume that charged particles at rest with respect to each other behave like charged pith balls.

I'm simply coming along and saying ..."Wait a minute! These are not valid assumptions that are backed up with data. So, why do you believe them?"

Generations of people have been led down the same erroneous path and they all end up at the same place... in the dark.

The name calling and vitriolic behavior I've gotten here at Randi's Forum is just like what one finds on usenet... Isn't there anyone here with reason and restraint? Anyone here who loves rational thought processes?

DHamilton

 

[DHamilton]

My brain isn't locked into anything. Answer the goddamned question:

How come those brainy scientists don't know all this ? And, if they do, what are you arguing for ?

You're displaying the properties of a tendiously dense person. First, your question was how did I know these things... and so I answered that question and showed you the path that I used to discover these things... then you modified the question to asked how come these "brainy scientists" don't know all this and I answered that question also but it seems that you simply refuse to read or grasp the response. People who are locked into a mode of thinking that there is a an absolute spatial frame that particles can be at rest with respect to can't possible get this. That is even likely why when I answer the question you still are unaware that I did answer your question. ... and I'm not arguing... I'm making some claims... you need to keep up... and right now you've not showed that you can.

DHamilton