Starship Asterisk*

Jim Leff wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: scientific thinking begins with an observation that suggests a question. That makes much more sense to them than the idea that it somehow starts with a hypothesis, and also makes it much easier for them to apply.

That's a distinction without a difference. Even if a hypothesis seemingly springs from deep within the recesses of a person's mind/imagination/intuition, it always stems from observation of some sort at some level. There is no such thing as a purely hermetic hypothesis.

Chris Peterson wrote:
There are actually a few papers on the subject of Bussard ramjets (which aren't current technology, of course) that consider how big the scoops would need to be, how much power would be required to sustain them, and how much thrust could be produced given different assumptions about ISM density and different possible fusion reactions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet#Feasibility wrote:
<<Since the time of Bussard's original proposal, it has been discovered that the region surrounding the sun has a much lower density of interstellar hydrogen than was believed at that time. T. A. Heppenheimer analyzed Bussard's original suggestion of fusing protons, but found the bremsstrahlung losses from compressing protons to fusion densities was greater than the power that could be produced by a factor of about 1 billion, thus indicating that the proposed version of the Bussard ramjet was infeasible. However Daniel P. Whitmire's 1975 analysis indicates that a ramjet may achieve net power via the CNO cycle, which produces fusion at a much higher rate (~10¹⁶ times higher) than the proton-proton chain.>>

Chris Peterson wrote:
<<Once you understand things, the idea that you must first make an observation seems obvious, but I assure you, it is not obvious to most students. Framing it as "look around for something interesting that inspires you to ask yourself how that happens" takes the abstraction out of hypothesizing. The idea that all scientific inquiry begins with observation really is key to understanding.>>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Plateau wrote:
<<Joseph Antoine Ferdinand Plateau (14 October 1801 – 15 September 1883) was a Belgian physicist. Fascinated by the persistence of luminous impressions on the retina, he performed an experiment in which he gazed directly into the sun for 25 seconds. He lost his eyesight later in his life, and attributed the loss to this experiment. However, this may not be the case, and he may have instead suffered from chronic uveitis.

Plateau studied the phenomena of capillary action and surface tension (Statique expérimentale et théorique des liquides soumis aux seules forces moléculaires, 1873). The mathematical problem of existence of a minimal surface with a given boundary is named after him. He conducted extensive studies of soap films and formulated Plateau's laws which describe the structures formed by such films in foams.>>

Boomer12k wrote:. Fred Hoyle STILL does not accept the Expanding Universe. *

heehaw wrote: "I would not agree that there ever was a 'first' member," said the Cloud. McNeil did not understand this remark, but Kingsley and Marlowe exchanged a glance, as if to say 'Oh-ho, there we go. That's one in the eyes for the exploding universe boys.'

Jim Leff wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: scientific thinking begins with an observation that suggests a question. That makes much more sense to them than the idea that it somehow starts with a hypothesis, and also makes it much easier for them to apply.

That's a distinction without a difference. Even if a hypothesis seemingly springs from deep within the recesses of a person's mind/imagination/intuition, it always stems from observation of some sort at some level. There is no such thing as a purely hermetic hypothesis.

Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:Let's say I suggest that dark matter surrounds all matter from the smallest quantum bit to the largest clusters of galaxies.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:Let's say I suggest that dark matter surrounds all matter from the smallest quantum bit to the largest clusters of galaxies.

Well, the problem is, the premise is inconsistent with any theory based on observation. So that kind of makes the rest of the conjecture fall apart.

Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:Let's say I suggest that dark matter surrounds all matter from the smallest quantum bit to the largest clusters of galaxies.

Well, the problem is, the premise is inconsistent with any theory based on observation. So that kind of makes the rest of the conjecture fall apart.

And that's fine if you would choose to educate me on "why it's inconsistent" so I would learn of my error. That was another point in my post.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: Well, the problem is, the premise is inconsistent with any theory based on observation. So that kind of makes the rest of the conjecture fall apart.

And that's fine if you would choose to educate me on "why it's inconsistent" so I would learn of my error. That was another point in my post.

Because everything points to dark matter being some kind of non-baryonic particle that will fit into the Standard Model. And we don't find any such particles surrounding other matter. Particles that interact gravitationally and possibly via the weak nuclear force have no binding mechanism to link them to other matter in the ubiquitous manner you suggest. We'd expect large scale clumping due to gravity (which we observe, of course), and a low density of free particles zipping around, unbound, which is what current experiments are attempting to detect. Some new particle bound to all other particles would throw the Standard Model into disarray, and that's a theory that is very well supported.