Dark Matter & Dark Energy - Page 7

[jasimp]

Something else that has not been mention in detail here is anti-particles, which basically are what anti-mater is made of. An example is the electron, which has an anti-particle the positron. Particles have the same mass as their anti-particles but are opposite in charge and other attributes. A positron has a positive charge, the opposite of an electron. If a positron and electron ever touched they would annihilate each other, creating photons. However to create a particle/anti-particle pair you have to make two massless particles, such as photons, collide with a certain amount of energy so that the mass can be created.

[RPDunn]

From what I've read, dark energy simply amounts to what 'scientists' found missing from their calculations of the Universe. And then they proposed that dark matter obscures our measurements thus creating the 'voids' they find. How anyone can quantify either (such as 96% vs 4% 'visible'), I dunno. As for Hermes, when you look at the energy spectrum and how we measure it in 'frequencies', and that atomic particles are in shells of different energy levels, etc.... it can become easy to see matter/energy/existence as merely 'vibrations'... different states of energy/matter in 'motion'... with time and motion being co-dependent (can't have one without the other). One may wonder what medium the 'vibrations' occur in... so perhaps 'visible' energy/matter is the 'vibration' in the dark matter/energy medium. ;)
Big Bang to you... 'God's Whisper to ?
Ha.

[jasimp]

Time is not an absolute measure but is different for everyone becasue time is affected by gravity. The stronger gravity is the slower time goes. The difference is very small, a clock on the suns surface would go only about one minute slower than one on the earths surface. Our biological clocks are also affected by gravity.
Dark energy was postulated to account for tiny ripples detected in bacround microwave radiation. The ripples indicated that the universe might be flat, the third Friedmann model. There was not enough matter or dark matter to account for this so they said that an undetected substance called dark energy might exist. Dark energy has never been observed while dark matter has.

[Lardmeister]

Since gravity is unipolar, how does it affect time? Only in one direction?

[jasimp]

I would seriously suggest reading a copy of Stephen Hawking's "A Briefer History of Time", or another book like it, that is where I get my information. I will try and explain with the best of my ability but to get a full account you should read the book. The theory of relativity predicts the amount of time "lost" due to gravity with great accuracy. It was tested in 1962 with two clocks at different heights and the one closer to the earths surface ran slower in exact agreement with general relativity. It also depends on the observer's point of "view". If they are at the bottom, their clock it is running perfectly. If they are at the top their's is running perfectly. It is if you are looking at both clocks you notice a discrepancy. This shows how time is relative to your position. Time is connected to space to form something called space-time which is able to be bent by gravity so this is one way that shows time is not an independent "item". If you could tear a hole in space-time you could theoretically travel in time if space-time was bent a certain way. It is very hard to explain if you are not an astro-physicist so I am sorry if this didn't help.

[MidiMagic]

It's simple.

The flow of time at the speed of light causes gravity, because otherwise, parts of elementary particles would exceed the speed of light as they spin and also move through time. So matter lags behind, distorting the space around it.

Because the gravity so created distorts space in the time dimension, it makes time take longer. We can't see the time dimension, because it is Lorentz-contracted to zero length.

[RPDunn]

Being it's all relative, 'time is different for everyone' ...when you can measure the difference :) Then again... some people are perpetually slow... must be in a gravity well.... or approaching the speed of light. :)

So does dark matter age faster at higher elevations? having higher potential dark energy? >;)

Sorry... just thought I'd re-germane the thread.
Never mind. I'll stop.

[jasimp]

it is impossible for anything with mass to reach the speed of light

[MidiMagic]

it is impossible for anything with mass to reach the speed of light

That fact is what makes gravity work.

[world_weapon]

By flow of time, do you mean the rate at which motion occurs? Mechanical Quantum or otherwise. Or does this mean that The continuum itself is altered. I thought the time was the mechanism in which motion exist and therefore become observable. But if the time flow itself is altered, then universally every 3D space could have its own unique time. I always thought that time itself was a universal constant and thought of it more as a mechanism in which things could persist/exist and the rate of which they changed was relative to there constituents wich would mostly be mass; namely things traveling less than the speed of light. I have been reading the Feynman Lectures on Physics but I've been told that these books were outdated and that I should buy a current physics textbook for a university level course to read instead.

[jasimp]

From what I have read every 3D space has it's own unique time.

[GrimJack]

There is a problem with attempting to tie god/religion to science - especially to scientific questions that are on the edge current thought. The 2 disciplines are fundamentally different; religion starts with the assumption that there is a god/supreme being and science starts with the assumption that universe is testable.

There were a lot of books written in the 1970's on how Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal 'proved' eastern mysticism (Dancing Wu Li Masters, Tao of Physics to name a few) - it seems each new puzzle that science finds is used to 'prove' the existence of a supreme being. The existence of a supreme being does not require proof, it is accepted as an act of faith. Faith is not testable in the scientific sense and there is no reason (heh,heh - pun intended) it should be.

And on the other hand, statements made in science must be tested. Two of the tests are very important:
1) falsifyability - the test must allow for the possibility that the statement is false/wrong.
2) predictablility - The implications of the statement must predict something that we do not know and that can be tested for.

I hope I did not get too far off on a tangent for this discussion

[EnderX]

Exactly how do you figure your logic makes the two fundamentally different? Before the rise of secularism, most scientists believed their task was to discover how God had built the world. And several of the tenets of secularism that are currently labeled as 'science' seem to fail the two tests you gave.

[GrimJack]

I have been reading the Feynman Lectures on Physics but I've been told that these books were outdated and that I should buy a current physics textbook for a university level course to read instead.

Please continue reading them! I worked at NOAA and started a movie program. the first movie I got was the Feynman lectures on physics which became the books you are reading (I have a copy myself and refer to them when I need help). The auditorium was filled to overflow with atmospheric and oceanographic scientist who applauded the movie. Those lectures are the basis for current physics, nothing in them is 'wrong' just added to. If you can work your way through those texts, you have all the basics you need to go further.

Thank you for reminding me of them. I would gush about the books all day but probably shouldn't.

[GrimJack]

Exactly how do you figure your logic makes the two fundamentally different? Before the rise of secularism, most scientists believed their task was to discover how God had built the world. And several of the tenets of secularism that are currently labeled as 'science' seem to fail the two tests you gave.

Define secularlism.

Yes most scientists attempted to discover how God created the world but whenever what they discovered differed from what the Word of God stated, they were imprisoned/executed/banished so they tended to have to separate the 2.

Following your definition of secularlism, please tell me which tenets of science are secular and fail the 2 tests.

[EnderX]

Define secularlism.

The religio-philosophical worldview wherein only the material world exists, for the most part. Refusing to admit even the possibility of any non-physical reality.

Yes most scientists attempted to discover how God created the world but whenever what they discovered differed from what the Word of God stated, they were imprisoned/executed/banished so they tended to have to separate the 2.

Such as? The only immediate example I can think of that meets your 'imprisoned/executed/banished' account is Galileo, and from what I've read, this was more for his views on the church than for his views on scientific matters, the traditional lore notwithstanding. (That and the one scientific/political argument he got into...the Pope requested a specific statement be made in a book Galileo was working on; Galileo did include it, but had it uttered by a character known as Simplicio. In this case, the name was a descriptive; apparently Simplicio was supposed to be the uneducated moron being answered by the more intelligent types.)

Following your definition of secularlism, please tell me which tenets of science are secular and fail the 2 tests.

One simple count...exactly what parts of the test for the evolutionary hypothesis are falsifiable?

[GrimJack]

The religio-philosophical worldview wherein only the material world exists, for the most part. Refusing to admit even the possibility of any non-physical reality.

Such as? The only immediate example I can think of that meets your 'imprisoned/executed/banished' account is Galileo, and from what I've read, this was more for his views on the church than for his views on scientific matters, the traditional lore notwithstanding. (That and the one scientific/political argument he got into...the Pope requested a specific statement be made in a book Galileo was working on; Galileo did include it, but had it uttered by a character known as Simplicio. In this case, the name was a descriptive; apparently Simplicio was supposed to be the uneducated moron being answered by the more intelligent types.)

One simple count...exactly what parts of the test for the evolutionary hypothesis are falsifiable?

Here is my definition of secularism:
"generally the assertion or belief that certain practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious belief - (one may believe in one religion, many religions or none at all, with little legal or social sanction)"
We have no common ground for discussion on the issue of secularism.

RE: 'imprisoned/executed/banished':
I do not have the time at present to pull together all the sources, dates, and citations - I will have to address this later this evening or tomorrow.

RE: testability of Evolutionary theory:
1)Geologically anachronistic placement of fossils.
2)carbon-14 tests on fossils up to 60,000 years old
3)potasium-40 tests on fossils up to 1.5 billion years old

If you would like me to expand on the tests, let me know.

[Lardmeister]

GrimJack and EnderX, I look at your educational levels, and it makes sense why EnderX grabs for religion. I don't think you can ever convince EnderX of anything you will say.

[GrimJack]

Lardmeister, I had to probe a bit to see if there was enough of an overlap that we could get into a discussion. The only area might be wrt the treatment of scientists by the religious establishment during those wonderfull years when persons of intelect discovered tool with which to observe the univers. It was the Irish monks who managed to save what few books survived that interegnum called the dark ages.
We might have been able to make it to a standoff on that topic.

Falsifiability - there was not much hope.

My wife and I get into serious discussion over superStrings because they are so beautiful and explain so much -- on the other hand, the only reason they explain so much is that they are mallable; with 11 dimension and the possibility to fold and twist them leaves us with almost a different explanation for each phenomenom.

My argumen is that though they explain much - they don't predict for squat; the string theorists have had almost 3o years and they have not made one prediction that was falsifiable

Sorry, it is late at night (the long dark tea-time of the soul - as someone once said) and dreams of grand TOE (theory of everything) has not raised it head. sometimes I despair - could string theory be another phlogistan theory?

I don't know, and I need some sleep

Tomorrow everything will be right with the world

"Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malic"

[jasimp]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6993870.stm

[MidiMagic]

Different spaces moving in different directions and at different relative speeds to each other DO experience different times.

And even more interesting is that people in each space sees time moving slower in the other space that is moving relative to it.

[Ancient Dragon]

>>Different spaces moving in different directions and at different relative speeds to each other DO experience different times.
That is such a definite statement that I'd like to see the proof. When I drive down the highway is the car ahead of me in a different time than I am? I doubt it, but there is no way that I know of to prove it one way or the other. Same with your statement above.

[MidiMagic]

It's all in the Relativity formulas. The term is "time dilation."

You will not have a different time if you are moving with the same velocity (speed and direction) as the other guy. Now the guy going the other way on the highway is a different story.

And at "ordinary speeds", you won't notice the difference, because it is a difference of less than .000001 mph if you are going 60 mph.

But if the speed gets up to half the speed of light, you will notice a profound difference in the time you see elapsing in the other space (it doesn't matter which space is moving at half the speed of light - the observations are the same). Time in the other space will appear to slow down to .866 of the speed you see time passing at in your own space. A second measured on a watch in the other space will seem to take 1.155 seconds according to your watch.

Objects in the other space will appear to shrink to only .866 of their length in the direction of motion, and their masses will appear to be 1.115 times as heavy.

The interesting part is that an observer in the other space sees YOUR time slow down, your second get longer, your lengths shrink, and your masses increase.

Measurements in atom smashers and in space travel have confirmed these to be real facts.

[Lardmeister]

If you would travel at the speed of light, would you actually get younger, or would the time just stand still relative to the place you left from?

[jasimp]

It is impossible to travel at the speed of light but if you could then your time would be slower than the time around you.

[Lardmeister]

I just watched a TV program on astronomy, that talked about the gamma ray bursts emitted when two suns collide. It is something you can only measure in space, since the atmosphere prevents gamma rays from penetrating to earth ground level.

More and more scientists think that it was an occcasional massive gamma ray burst, created from a collision of two black holes, that in turn created massive extinctions of living organisms on earth. The idea is that gamma rays are so energetic that they will combine nitrogen and oxygen atoms to form a mix of nitrogen oxides. Nitrogen oxides in turn will give the earth a one two punch, destroying most of the UV protective ozone, and the dark brown color of the dioxide will over time create an ice age.

Very realistic science fiction.

[jasimp]

I have never heard that theory before. Very interesting.

[Lardmeister]

Yeah, talking about dark or at least evil energy:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/gamma/milkyway2.html

[jasimp]

Nice article!

[Lardmeister]

The rather frequent gamma ray bursts would make long range space travel almost impossible! The damage to DNA would be to great to survive.