split from Light Echoes from V838 Mon (APOD 03 Feb 2008)

Dr. Skeptic · Post by **Dr. Skeptic** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:33 pm

It doesn't matter what theory you're supporting, Dark Matter and Dark Energy are required for galaxy and super cluster formation. With out Dark Matter (or the theories supporting it) the universe would be a homogeneous particle cloud.

A Steady-State model of the universe is far more dependent on Dark Matter than is the BBT.

NoelC · Post by **NoelC** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:57 pm

Here I am going to be more skeptical than Dr. Skeptic for a moment...

Wouldn't a revised set of math to describe the warpage of space-time by mass (the effect of which we perceive as gravity) also be an alternate way to explain galaxy and super cluster formation? Dark matter is only necessary to shore up old math we can't possibly be sure applies on a cosmic scale.

I wonder how many people visualize that the effect we call gravity propagates at the speed of light - i.e., unbelievably slowly on a galactic or intergalactic scale - and have taken this into effect when looking to explain things like spiral arms in galaxies and supercluster formation. Seems to me it's no static effect, but something more akin to waves in an ocean being affected dynamically by currents of water underneath.

-Noel

harry · Post by **harry** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 10:37 pm

Hello Skeptic

You said

It doesn't matter what theory you're supporting, Dark Matter and Dark Energy are required for galaxy and super cluster formation. With out Dark Matter (or the theories supporting it) the universe would be a homogeneous particle cloud.

A Steady-State model of the universe is far more dependent on Dark Matter than is the BBT.

You are 100% correct.

Cannot argue with that.

Martin · Post by **Martin** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 10:38 pm

What about the "Branes" predicted in the M-Theory. Could this be the matter/force that ignorates us. (is that a word NoelC-lol)

Could there be some unknown property to empty space itself that reacts against matter on larger galactic/cosmic scales

harry · Post by **harry** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 11:35 pm

Hello Martin

More branes make work light.
The multi-dimensions are in fantasy land.

Empty space serves as a vacuum sucking pressure.

Vector forces from vacuum and gravity grids can be mapped out.

Arramon · Post by **Arramon** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 6:19 am

Dr. Skeptic · Post by **Dr. Skeptic** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:01 pm

Maybe its not dark matter driving the observations but instead it's residual behavior of entanglement throughout the universe.

Arramon · Post by **Arramon** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:23 pm

I find the overall structure of the visible universe around us too similar to the veins running through any living creature. very eery.
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/ ... F_063a.jpg

bystander · Post by **bystander** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 6:47 pm

Arramon wrote:I find the overall structure of the visible universe around us too similar to the veins running through any living creature.

Looks to me more like a neuro system than a vascular system.

Martin · Post by **Martin** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:34 pm

From macro to micro the similarities are far to remarkable to be brushed off like its just chance coincidence. yet we do....why do you think that is?

Arramon · Post by **Arramon** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:47 pm

wow... very similar!

Cherie · Post by **Cherie** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:30 am

The last 4 posts make me think of a remark attributed to Sir Arthur Eddington. It answers Martin's question, "why do you think that is?"

I can't quote it exactly, but the gist of it is: "The universe did not exist first for mankind to discover it; the universe exists because man was here first to think it up."

Am I close enough with the quote that one of you is familiar with it...and perhaps can confirm it's from Eddington, and where it's in print?

I tend to agree with the concept...would love to read the context in which it was written.

Thanks,
Cherie

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 2:44 am

Hello All

Now we are off the topic.

Than again we are looking at the properties shown by the plasma universe and the electric universe theory.

http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/bapsf/pages/gallery.html#

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/elec_currents.html

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/EM_forces.html

The plasma physicist Hannes Alfvén drew an analogy between the human body and and large bodies in space.

Martin · Post by **Martin** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 3:28 am

Could there be a universal template for structural design?

Interesting Cherie. Thanks for replying.
To answer my own question: I think it is because intellectually we are fearful, divided and weak.

"Now we are off topic" I can't believe YOU said that Harry

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 8:21 am

Hello Martin

I said, and if you read on you would understand what I wrote.

Smile,,,,,,,,,,stay cool

I said

Than again we are looking at the properties shown by the plasma universe and the electric universe theory

and Hannes quote.

astrolabe · Post by **astrolabe** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:28 pm

Hello Harry,

Thank you

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 11:05 pm

Hello Astrolabe

You said thank you

Why?

astrolabe · Post by **astrolabe** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 1:32 am

Hello Harry,

For your response on Mar. 14, of course. Your considerate reply was, and is, greatly appreciated.

Various forms of dark matter existing is an exciting prospect! I agree that it's a theory yet to be proved but if it is out there does supersymmetry require that there be anti-dark matter? Because of the deep distances involved in spacetime would it not be "dark" per se but invisible as it's ability to telegraph light may suggest? I could be splitting atoms here 'cause if you can't see it, then yes, it is dark.

harry · Post by **harry** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 4:03 am

Hello Astrolabe

Well if you think along the Big Bang theory and you have your origin you would expect all matter to be normal.

If you think along the recycling universe you would have infinity to work it self out.

As for anti-matter forming and remaining stable is another issue and how long would it last. The dominant matter would eat it up. Anti-matter is formed via sun rays hitting the outer earth layer and been broken up in a split of a second.

Dark matter is matter that is unable to be seen, no great mystery. It's just that most matter is in the form of degenerate matter found in Nucleons, compacted matter in Neutron stars and so called black holes and are too far and too small to be see.

Dr. Skeptic · Post by **Dr. Skeptic** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 7:10 pm

harry wrote:Hello Astrolabe

Well if you think along the Big Bang theory and you have your origin you would expect all matter to be normal.

If you think along the recycling universe you would have infinity to work it self out.

As for anti-matter forming and remaining stable is another issue and how long would it last. The dominant matter would eat it up. Anti-matter is formed via sun rays hitting the outer earth layer and been broken up in a split of a second.

Dark matter is matter that is unable to be seen, no great mystery. It's just that most matter is in the form of degenerate matter found in Nucleons, compacted matter in Neutron stars and so called black holes and are too far and too small to be see.

Harry,

Infinity is not a number - it is a non limit - infinity does not exist in the empirical universe. Stating the universe is infinite in any way is forcing an empirical value to a non empirical concept - IT CANNOT BE DONE! PERIOD!

Attempting what you propose removes the "science" and changes the theory into the equivalent to a non-provable religion.

Your definition for dark matter is also not even close to what science researchers are referring to, please closely read the commentary on the previous APOD covering dark matter:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060824.html

Dark matter does no react to "normal" matter in "normal" ways.

astrolabe · Post by **astrolabe** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 12:46 am

Hello Harry and Dr. Skeptic,

I've always had a little problem with BBT because of the idea of singularity. I mean just the enormity of the implication is a mind rubic. As for infinity not being a number, well, Pi comes to mind right off and even though any calculation using it couldn't be perfect it is nonetheless of great practical value. I understood once that string theory or M-theory came on to the scene to resolve the issue in which the calculations of GR and QM "added" up to infinity which was unacceptable. It though, like Pi, might still have practical value?

Now, judicial ridicule is not olny allowed, it's expected, and in some cases (mine for instance?) required.

harry · Post by **harry** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:32 am

Hello All

Dr Skeptic said

Infinity is not a number - it is a non limit - infinity does not exist in the empirical universe. Stating the universe is infinite in any way is forcing an empirical value to a non empirical concept - IT CANNOT BE DONE! PERIOD!

Attempting what you propose removes the "science" and changes the theory into the equivalent to a non-provable religion.

Your definition for dark matter is also not even close to what science researchers are referring to, please closely read the commentary on the previous APOD covering dark matter:

Dr Skeptic, you nead to do alot of reading. Not only do you read words out of context but you express an opinion to be taken as law.

Infinity may not exist for you, but! the universe does not know the meaning. As for religion, I would leave it out.

Dark matter can be defined in many different ways.

=====================================

Hello Astrolabe

Many have problems with the BBT.
In actual fact many think that the BB occured from one point and refers to actual distances.
In reality the theory is this:

I had this explanation in my comp.

The Standard explanation of the Big Bang has it that all matter came from a small point. The matter emerged and was flung (moved) outwards.

No, that is completely wrong. It is a popular myth that survives because it takes too much time and effort to explain what the Big Bang really is. But it is not any kind of explosion into pre-existing space. It has no center and no edge. Instead, the Big Bang is an explosion OF space, not an explosion INTO space. Since the very beginning, all matter and galaxies remain pretty much in place in their local space except for small local motions. The reason that galaxies get farther apart is not because of motion of galaxies through space, but because more empty space is continually being created between them. The whole universe is a 3D analog of an expanding balloon surface with dimes taped to it. All the dimes (representing galaxies) are getting farther apart from all the others even though none of them is moving, and there is no center and no edge to the balloon surface.

Yes there are varies BBT and everybody hangs onto their "emotional hold" as if they are married to them.

I tend to go with the cyclic universe that is able to explain all issues without having to add ad hoc ideas to make the model work. If you try to explain the cyclic universe you will get hammered by mainstream BBT people.

Dr. Skeptic · Post by **Dr. Skeptic** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 12:34 pm

I tend to go with the cyclic universe that is able to explain all issues without having to add ad hoc ideas to make the model work. If you try to explain the cyclic universe you will get hammered by mainstream BBT people.

You tend to go with an over simplified reality of the universe limited to your Earth bound perception of physics.

A cyclical universe is only possible if Space/Time and Mass/Gravity are reset back to zero which sounds a lot like a "Big Bang" type scenario to me. The reason you get hammered by the mainstream is: "BECAUSE THE SCIENCE DOESN"T WORK!
And, you despise the thought that any self-serving monument you build would not be permanent. Yes Harry, the empirical universe is 100%temporary - get use to it. Also stop inventing/propagating pseudo science that proves an outcome that isn't defined. (As in you must prove the universe is infinite before you can prove "why" it is infinite)

Science leads, it doesn't follow.

NoelC · Post by **NoelC** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:46 pm

Science leads, it doesn't follow

I'm reminded of a program I wrote many decades ago - it was a solution to the "knight's tour" problem, where a single knight has to cover the entire chessboard by visiting each square only once - and was implemented as a tree search. It posted it's results graphically, by drawing vectors between the moves, and attempted to solve the problem with brute force, by making every possible move at every junction, remembering the move, and moving on.

When it made a series of perfectly valid moves, but which could not possibly lead to a solution, it would spend much time trying every possible move at the "tip" of the tree branch, dutifully attempting every combination, then backing up one move and trying every combination, and so on...

It was clear to anyone watching that the problem causing the program to thrash at every possible combination of "end game" was a "poor" move early on, leading the program down a path that seemed right (to the computer) at the time, but which would never yield a true solution.

Watching that program work, back in the 1970s when computers were slow enough to be able to visually perceive the execution of machine instructions, felt much like watching people today trying to "solve" the meaning and origin of the universe by building on fundamental theories made well before the kinds of detailed observations and measurements we take for granted today were available.

Every move was flawless given the view of the program at that step, yet in a higher sense the solution was to be found in a completely different direction, and the solution of the problem required the program to fall back all the way to an early move and try again.

-Noel

bystander · Post by **bystander** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 4:26 pm

Dr. Skeptic wrote:Infinity is not a number - it is a non limit - infinity does not exist in the empirical universe. Stating the universe is infinite in any way is forcing an empirical value to a non empirical concept - IT CANNOT BE DONE! PERIOD!

You make this argument over and over and it still doesn't hold water. Your views of infinity and empircism are flawed. This argument has been made before.

http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... hp?t=12876