What's the other 90+% made of?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Cassius Malachi, Dec 28, 2015.

  1. The God Valued Senior Member

    Arrogant, immodest...Yes.

    Ignorant ...no, not at all.

    See, how GR and certain bizarre nonsense around are being pushed, very arrogantly by a group of mainstream guys. Everyone who opposes is nutter, or crank or idiot or anti science, or agenda driven, or religious.......and he is blocked from any access or fundings........so such malaise can only be handled with equal force arrogance and immodesty, and I am telling you BH is nothing but pure BS, and very very soon it will go away.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Again you demonstrate that the Eddington example was a posteriori reasoning and not a priori reasoning.

    Why you focus on a century old observation and not look at a single, more recent and more careful gravitational lensing observation is why you are a crank. That you pollute threads like this with your off-topic wailing is why you are a crank.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    If you would look through the bibliography I showed you, you would see many people who are or were able to make quite a good living critiquing relativity theory. You are a crank because you use specious reasoning or none at all to promote your agenda.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. The God Valued Senior Member

    Again this reflects your ignorance......

    In case of Sun as lensing object, the mass, mass distribution and radius data is known to a fairly decent level. But in case of other so called lensing objects like galaxy or cluster of galxies....it cannot be said that mass or mass distribution or r is known as accurate as that in case of Sun......

    So to prove GR (through lensing), the experiment around the sun is the most important and easiest ....In case of other lensing objects, many a times we use the observed deflection value as a tool to estimate the mass, not as a proof of GR.

    Learn man, learn....it is not good to argue from a position of ignorance..
  8. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Says you, the person who hasn't ever looked at these observations. And what about other sources of errors? What about seeing?

    Your response neither changes the fact that you are ignoring a century of scientific evidence nor the fact that you continue to pollute a thread about your off-topic ranting.
    Lensing can be both a means of determining mass and a test of GR. That's how science works. Specifically, because the mass estimate from lensing matches the mass estimates from other means, this is evidence that GR is correct.
    Says you, the person ignoring a century of scientific evidence in order to attack a theory with only its very first test.
  9. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    how do they know there is so much unaccounted for matter? is it because the galaxies are moving away from each other?
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    My view is you certainly, without a shadow of a doubt, get 3/3
    Such nonsensical ranting is obviously desired to inflame those that appreciate cosmology and the great theories that accompany it.
    Some points worth noting though [1]as usual the remarks come from an amateur without any credentials, somewhat burdened and troubled with the fact that cosmology has pushed back his desired need for a deity into near oblivion: [2] As said many many times, the remarks are confined to a small amount of cyber space that in a day or two will be totally lost in the accompanying noise that it creates and obviously is treated with the contempt it deserves by most here. Simply put, there claims made on the internet about science, are as credible as the claims of ghosts, Alien origin UFO's, fairies, 9/11 conspiracies, Faked Moon landing conspiracies etc etc etc:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    [3]The theories of Evolution, the BB, SR, GR, including BH's stand as overwhelmingly supported by most reputable scientists due to the evidence available: [4] If any changes and/or modifications or extensions are made, they will certainly not be forthcoming from the many trolls and anti science nuts that infest forums such as this: They of course will emerge from mainstream science and the many space orientated and ground based state of the art equipment and technology available to accepted mainstream: [5]If and when that does happen, the usual trolls and anti science freaks, will continue to squirm, conspire and fabricate nonsensical alternatives, simply for the sake of it and their agenda and associated arrogance, immodesty and ignorance. 3/3 again!
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2015
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    The fact that the universe/space/time is expanding, is why distant galaxies appear to be receding from each other.
    DM is known to exist, due to fact of physics and the rotational speeds of galaxies.
    NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
    DM probably comes in two forms known as WIMP's and MACHO's
    DE is know to exist in some form or other due to the observational data that has shown an acceleration in that expansion rate. Although its makeup is still a mystery, it is sometimes thought to be the CC of Einstein fame.
    Simply put though, DE is probably just a property of spacetime itself.
  12. The God Valued Senior Member

    Give one example....
  13. The God Valued Senior Member

    And the spacetime is not real.

    Property of something unreal, is causing the accelerated expansion of the real universe. Wow !

    You have not understood mainstream, just babbling for the sake of it.
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Not at all: The situation is obviously reversed with you doing the continued babbling, sadly to no avail.
    What is a space time continuum?
    In 1906, soon after Albert Einstein announced his special theory of relativity, his former college teacher in mathematics, Hermann Minkowski, developed a new scheme for thinking about space and time that emphasized its geometric qualities. In his famous quotation delivered at a public lecture on relativity, he announced that,

    "The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."

    This new reality was that space and time, as physical constructs, have to be combined into a new mathematical/physical entity called 'space-time', because the equations of relativity show that both the space and time coordinates of any event must get mixed together by the mathematics, in order to accurately describe what we see. Because space consists of 3 dimensions, and time is 1-dimensional, space-time must, therefore, be a 4-dimensional object. It is believed to be a 'continuum' because so far as we know, there are no missing points in space or instants in time, and both can be subdivided without any apparent limit in size or duration. So, physicists now routinely consider our world to be embedded in this 4-dimensional Space-Time continuum, and all events, places, moments in history, actions and so on are described in terms of their location in Space-Time.

    Space-time does not evolve, it simply exists. When we examine a particular object from the stand point of its space-time representation, every particle is located along its world-line. This is a spaghetti-like line that stretches from the past to the future showing the spatial location of the particle at every instant in time. This world-line exists as a complete object which may be sliced here and there so that you can see where the particle is located in space at a particular instant. Once you determine the complete world line of a particle from the forces acting upon it, you have 'solved' for its complete history. This world-line does not change with time, but simply exists as a timeless object. Similarly, in general relativity, when you solve equations for the shape of space-time, this shape does not change in time, but exists as a complete timeless object. You can slice it here and there to examine what the geometry of space looks like at a particular instant. Examining consecutive slices in time will let you see whether, for example, the universe is expanding or not.

    You've been here a while now my divine one: You should be doing better.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  15. river

    Yet advanced thinking .......

    pad you are not an example of advanced physics.
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2016
  16. The God Valued Senior Member

    Don't you see a sea change in your knowledge of Physics....Now you have started referring to Arxiv papers from Pop science craps..its all because of my 'a while now' stay here, Paddoboy. I told you, despite your abuses, you will get educated. You are a far better student than few jokes around..
  17. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    I gave you two databases of these sorts of things, remember?
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    And yet through all your tripe, you remain as deluded as ever.
    You have nothing, no evidence to support anything you say, you totally lack any credentials, and you ignore anyone with credentials that try and correct the stupidity of your posts. Rather amusing and sad at the same time.
  19. Waiter_2001 Registered Senior Member

    YOU are rubber I am glue...
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Cassius Malachi:

    Could you please give two or three modern examples of why science isn't "true science" any more?
    Actually, it has always been both. There is a constant interplay between theory and observation/experiment. Sometimes theory leads; sometimes observations lead. A good theory is one that makes testable predictions. Good data is data that can be meaningfully compared with theoretical predictions.

    You're wrong on just about every point you've made there. If you're interested, read just about any biography of Einstein. There is a lot of reliable information about Einstein on the web, too, but you have to be careful because there's also a lot of crap. It seems you've bought into some urban myths about Einstein.

    Perhaps so. After his achievements were recognised and he became world famous lots of institutions wanted to bask in his reflected glory. However, the qualifications that allowed him to work on his theory of relativity and so on were not honorary. For example, in 1905 he gained his doctoral qualifications for his groundbreaking work on Brownian motion. He was employed on the basis of hard-earned qualifications and real achievements.

    That's a myth, and incorrect.

    Such is the nature of science. This is not a problem. Theories often make predictions that are not confirmed until later.

    Those quotes of Einstein are regularly trotted out by people who want to justify why they are uneducated. Presumably, they'd like to think they could be an Einstein too, because Einstein was uneducated, just like them. It's a comforting fantasy, but that's all.

    How? With your extrasensory perception?

    I think you'll find that almost invariably, those important ideas and theories that came "suddenly" to famous scientists followed a long period of hard work and deliberate thought about the problem at hand.

    Avatar is science fiction. It is very unlikely that you are tuned into a conscious cosmic network.

    Knowledge creation comes from old-fashioned hard work. It isn't handed down by the Cosmic God to vague dreamers.
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Astronomy Picture of the Day

    Discover the cosmos! Each day a different image or photograph of our fascinating universe is featured, along with a brief explanation written by a professional astronomer.

    2015 December 6

    A Force from Empty Space: The Casimir Effect
    Image Credit & Copyright:
    Umar Mohideen (U. California at Riverside)
    Explanation: This tiny ball provides evidence that the universe will expand forever. Measuring slightly over one tenth of a millimeter, the ball moves toward a smooth plate in response to energy fluctuations in the vacuum of empty space. The attraction is known as the Casimir Effect, named for its discoverer, who, 55 years ago, was trying to understand why fluids like mayonnaise move so slowly. Today, evidence indicatesthat most of the energy density in the universe is in an unknown form dubbed dark energy. The form and genesis of dark energy is almost completely unknown, but postulated as related to vacuum fluctuationssimilar to the Casimir Effect but generated somehow by space itself. This vast and mysterious dark energyappears to gravitationally repel all matter and hence will likely cause the universe to expand forever. Understanding vacuum energy is on the forefront of research not only to better understand our universe but also for stopping micro-mechanical machine parts from sticking together.

Share This Page