For the alternative theorists:

forrest noble said:
I disagree with the mainstream conclusion. I understand that mainstream astronomers and theorists believe that the bullet cluster is strong evidence for the existence of dark matter.
Click to expand...
You have it backwards. The cluster exhibits gravitational forces that are incongruent with its mass distribution. Since the mainstream does not believe in magic, then they do not accept that this cluster just got special exemption from the laws of nature. The signature is one of a different mass distribution, hence other mass must be present. It's an entirely different problem than you suppose.

I agree that it is strong evidence that there is something there, but not necessarily dark matter.
Click to expand...
Ah, so you believe in magic?

Instead I think they are looking at the effects of a flowing aether
Click to expand...
That's an absurd conclusion, even for a superstitious person. You have to stop trying to impose your fantasies--of how you wish things worked--onto reality. Aether has been deader than a doornail for well over 100 yrs. It was never more than speculation to begin with. Why pretend that there's more to it? Is this religiously motivated? I mean, if you come up with evidence for aether then all the fundies will say: "See! There is evidence of God after all!" :bugeye: They are the only ones who invest so much in fabricating stuff and calling it science--I mean, for them the stakes are high. What's in this for you?

that cannot be considered matter,
Click to expand...
It has to have mass otherwise there is no gravitational interaction. You can't escape this.

and its effects would be pushing observable matter rather than pulling it or warping space.
Click to expand...
All mass warps space, so you probably need to start over with first principles. This is not a question of pushing or pulling. It's a problem in which the visible mass doesn't account for the trajectories of the objects in the cluster. That's not a mainstream vs alternative issue. It's a question of expecting to see a star in a particular location on a given night and it's not there. I think your whole problem is that you don't give credit to the folks doing the stargazing. Why is that? Do you think you could do a better job? Then by all means, go forward. There are programs in astronomy and physics all over the world. Heck, go do what Galileo did -- make your own observatory and sit up every night and study the sky. Eventually you'll come to respect the people who have invested decades doing just that.

You don't get off the hook just by calling yourself an "alternative theorist". Au contraire, you have to be twice as productive. Most importantly, you have to have an actual theory. Aether isn't theory. It was sheer speculation, long since disproven. We call it "alternative theory" here to give the cranks a chance to express themselves--preferably far from the main threads. But it's not only dead on arrival, it's long since fossilized.
 
Aqueous Id said:
The subject of this thread invites discussion on the definition of "alternative". It's commonly defined as "the minority view". Therefore, to understand "the minority view" we need to understand "the majority view". In plain English, that's a comparison between "mainstream" and "alternative" theory. However, you entered into the discussion with an admonishment for posters advocating "mainstream" theory to follow the same advice given here to cranks who propound pseudoscience which purports to be legitimate alternative theory. In so doing you admitted that you equate proponents of mainstream theory with cranks and trolls. This led to the questions I asked you, to simply declare where you stand. It's simple and direct. All I've asked you to do is to come out into the open with whatever is bothering you.
Click to expand...


Well said AId...sorry I missed it early in the piece.
Yeah, the alternative/pseudoscientist/conspiracy supporters that have nothing of scientific value to add...rather just sit on the sidelines sniping and whinging when the non mainstream unsupported hypothesis brigade, start getting a hard time.
 
The subject of this thread invites discussion on the definition of "alternative". It's commonly defined as "the minority view". Therefore, to understand "the minority view" we need to understand "the majority view". In plain English, that's a comparison between "mainstream" and "alternative" theory. However, you entered into the discussion with an admonishment for posters advocating "mainstream" theory to follow the same advice given here to cranks who propound pseudoscience which purports to be legitimate alternative theory. In so doing you admitted that you equate proponents of mainstream theory with cranks and trolls.
Click to expand...

It is easy to be a critic, since all it requires is negativity, which does not require understanding. One can act like the little bully, within a big gang, who will pick fights, not because he can win one-on-one, but because he thinks he has the backup of the larger gang. What was being proposed above are the little bullies in the mainstream gang use a different version of quack science, where insults count as data. The suggestion was the mainstream fight their battles using science and not little bully in the gang thuggery.

In my experience, many mainstream theories are not perfect, and often have conceptual and observational problems. Science is always evolving with new angles and data always appearing. For example, although dark matter and dark energy is now mainstream, why can't we see these it in the lab? The explanation to this sounds like pseudo-science but the gang looks the other way. Often what happens is those who are more objective, who see these problems lack good answers, see the need for an alternative. This is how many are spawned. They don't just run with the gang, even though the gang will try to force them back.

I remember watching the live feeds, years back, from the Mars Rover. It was sending back discoveries on Mars's surface nobody expected, even though Mars is one of the closest objects we observe in space. It is funny how we know everything millions of light years away. Theories from a distance are often based on group fantasy, because you will never get close enough to put it to a true test. The need to overcompensate explains the intolerance.

The question is why can't we see dark matter and dark energy up close, but we can see it light years away? We can see animals in the clouds from the surface but not the same animal when we fly. The mainstream should be able to answer this, since mainstream means real, correct?
 
wellwisher said:
For example, although dark matter and dark energy is now mainstream, why can't we see these it in the lab? The explanation to this sounds like pseudo-science but the gang looks the other way.

The question is why can't we see dark matter and dark energy up close, but we can see it light years away? We can see animals in the clouds from the surface but not the same animal when we fly. The mainstream should be able to answer this, since mainstream means real, correct?
Click to expand...

Both of these statements show a profound ignorance of dark matter and dark energy.

You apparently do not have any knowledge about these things or you would not be shocked that they cannot be seen in the lab. You realize there are lots of thing that certainly exist but cannot be reproduced in the lab, don't you? Neutron stars exist yet we cannot produce them in that lab, but maybe you question that they exist.:shrug: Plant photosythesis occurs but cannot be reproduced in the lab, do you question photosythesis?

Here is a simple primer on dark energy and dark matter. If you pay very close attention you will be able to see why we cannot at this time reproduce it in the lab.
 
Last edited:
wellwisher said:
It is easy to be a critic, since all it requires is negativity, which does not require understanding. One can act like the little bully, within a big gang, who will pick fights, not because he can win one-on-one, but because he thinks he has the backup of the larger gang. What was being proposed above are the little bullies in the mainstream gang use a different version of quack science, where insults count as data. The suggestion was the mainstream fight their battles using science and not little bully in the gang thuggery.
Click to expand...




ISN'T THIS THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK?. Are you not being hypocritical?
I mean nearly all your posts criticise mainstream.
And you expect people to support the rantings and ravings of other anti mainstreamers we have here, claiming to have a ToE.
You expect them to be able to claim such an unlikely scenario without being questioned and taken to task?

The problem with science forums such as this, is that they attract the alternative nutters, like flies to a dead horse. It's the only outlet that they have.
You need to remember that nearly all great discoveries of the past, were by mainstream scientists, and you can bet your balls, that near ALL discoveries and advances in the future will also be by mainstream.
Do you have access to the HST...or Planck?....or Spitzer?...or any of the other myriad of scientific probes we have outside the Earth's atmosphere.

You continued inane questioning and doubt about DM and DE has been answered many times, yet you ignore.
Obviously the only intolerance showed is on your part with mainstream science.



wellwisher said:
In my experience, many mainstream theories are not perfect, and often have conceptual and observational problems. Science is always evolving with new angles and data always appearing.
Click to expand...


Science evolves because of mainstream...not some alternative/conspiracy theorist hick from the backwoods!
 
You apparently do not have any knowledge about these things or you would not be shocked that they cannot be seen in the lab. You realize there are lots of thing that certainly exist but cannot be reproduced in the lab, don't you?
Click to expand...

One should include God in that category, since he cannot be proven in the lab, but is claimed to exist. Lack of lab proof kills that theory, so why is dark energy and dark matter under a different or dual standard?

I am using God to show the dual standard when it comes to animals in the clouds.


A more logical explanation of Dark energy and Dark matter:

The way I would explain the observations that are attributed to dark energy and dark matter, are these are artifacts of there being no preferred reference in the universe. Without an absolute reference, each relative reference sees its own unique relative universal energy balance.

As a simplified example, say we use two references to view the universe. The first is the earth and the second is a neutron star. The neutron star, looking at the same sector of the universe, will see a hotter universe due to the impact of its own GR on the incoming energy. No reference is preferred, so this hotter view is also as valid as the cooler the earth sees.

Since these do not agree, an average of these two is closer to the truth, since neither is absolute. Since the earth sees cooler than the average, what the earth sees is short of the average energy. The extra energy needed to create the average, is called dark energy.

One would need to use the speed of light reference to avoid seeing animals in the cloud.

Below is a space-time well with each point in the well seeing a different universal energy. If I can prove this in the lab does this animal in the cloud count for more than animal in the cloud with no proof, or is the dual standard still in effect because of the large consensus gang?

bh_warp1_E.gif
 
wellwisher said:
One should include God in that category, since he cannot be proven in the lab, but is claimed to exist. Lack of lab proof kills that theory, so why is dark energy and dark matter under a different or dual standard?
Click to expand...
It's not lack of lab proof that kills theological explanations, its lack of any evidence. For dark matter and dark energy, however, there are lots of ways to measure these things and the different ways tend to agree.
A more logical explanation of Dark energy and Dark matter:

The way I would explain the observations that are attributed to dark energy and dark matter, are these are artifacts of there being no preferred reference in the universe. Without an absolute reference, each relative reference sees its own unique relative universal energy balance.
Click to expand...
That makes absolutely no sense. We identify dark matter being in different places and measure it in different ways. We measure the overall amount of dark matter and dark energy through their effect on the dynamics of the universe. The way these things work on the universe over time is something that changes over cosmological time, so it's not something that one can explain away with one simple thing.

Do you think that scientists are idiots?
 
Aqueous Id
.........I think your whole problem is that you don't give credit to the folks doing the stargazing. Why is that? Do you think you could do a better job? Then by all means, go forward. There are programs in astronomy and physics all over the world. Heck, go do what Galileo did -- make your own observatory and sit up every night and study the sky. Eventually you'll come to respect the people who have invested decades doing just that.

You don't get off the hook just by calling yourself an "alternative theorist". Au contraire, you have to be twice as productive. Most importantly, you have to have an actual theory. Aether isn't theory. It was sheer speculation, long since disproven. We call it "alternative theory" here to give the cranks a chance to express themselves--preferably far from the main threads. But it's not only dead on arrival, it's long since fossilized.
Click to expand...

As an alternative theorist I have written my own theories, a book of some 400 pages long of totally unique theory which can be viewed at pantheory.com. The theories involve many of their own equations including those of cosmological distances, brightness and related measurements which are very different from mainstream equations and theoretical models. Most of the things you have said are certainly mainstream theory, but I think there are better explanations for most everything in modern physics. For instance my last theoretical paper, link below, was contrary to the dark energy hypothesis and the Big Bang model.

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/32603/19463

With others, I expect to publish my next paper in late 2014, which will explain my theory of gravity which is contrary to both General Relativity and dark matter. It will contain gravitational formulations confirmed by observations, and more like MOND gravity but with a stronger theoretical basis.
 
Last edited:
Fraggle Rocker said:
.
I think we have a total of about eight members here who have those qualifications. And isn't it interesting that these are the members who never claim to have found the flaw in relativity. Or heliocentricity. :)
Click to expand...



I would like to see something illustrating the above members here who have PhD's and in what field.
Can the administrators/mods give this some thought?
 
wellwisher;

bh_warp1_E.gif
Click to expand...


I need some help here.

When I look at these illustrations it appears that the fabric of spacetime becomes stretched from extreme gravitational forces the closer you get to the mass. But from what I know about gravity the fabric of spacetime becomes more condensed in the presence of massive objects.

Can someone shed light on this? Is there a different model available?
 
Write4U said:
I need some help here.

When I look at these illustrations it appears that the fabric of spacetime becomes stretched from extreme gravitational forces the closer you get to the mass. But from what I know about gravity the fabric of spacetime becomes more condensed in the presence of massive objects.

Can someone shed light on this? Is there a different model available?
Click to expand...


Simply, Space/time is warped in the presence of mass/energy....The more dense the mass, the greater the space/time warpage...

Mass tells space/time how to curve: Space/time tells mass how to move:
John Archibald Wheeler:
 
The concept, there is no preferred reference, means different references see differently. None are able to do an accurate universal energy balance or else that reference would be called the preferred or absolute reference. The one exception is the C reference.

If reference A, sees one balance and reference B sees another and neither are absolute but both are relative, how do you approximate an absolute reference. I suggested an average. This average will change the balance, relative both references, A and B. It can add or take away from what is seen.

As an example, say you begin on the earth and look at the universe to formulate your theories, like we have done. Next, we go on a space ship and accelerate until we reach near realistic velocity. Now our observations are impacted by relativity. We know enough to adjust for this and will continue to use the reference connected by earthlings as the standard since this is where the brass lives and they have priority.

But say centuries later, you were born in the ship, and due to a fire years earlier all records and communication are now gone. Your universe is no longer based on an adjustment from the earth, but based on your real time reference.

Since it is easier to use this reference as the standard, instead of using the imagination and/or math to choose a distant star, all new theory will be loosely based on using the space ship references as the zero state, even though we know this is not valid. This compromise makes it easier to all agree on raw visual data without any massage. At the same time, since this is different from the original earth reference, these two pseudo-zero references will not agree. Our theory will be based on what we see, not on what the distant memory of the earth might see.

I used a simple average, but that may not be the best way to average across all possible references. After pondering this, I opted to use the speed of light as the ground state, since this is the only reference that all relative references will agree upon as a standard. It was the best place for an absolute reference and thereby circumvent how to average across all possible references to see how much mass/energy we need to add to our earth universe perception.

I say add, because dark energy and dark matter imply an addition.
 
wellwisher said:
One should include God in that category, since he cannot be proven in the lab, but is claimed to exist. Lack of lab proof kills that theory, so why is dark energy and dark matter under a different or dual standard?
Click to expand...

Wellwisher are you saying that the only evidence comes from the lab? You seem to be saying that since we cannot make a neutron star in the lab, that there is the same amount of evidence for a neutron star as there is for God.

Is that really what you are saying?
 
Wellwisher are you saying that the only evidence comes from the lab? You seem to be saying that since we cannot make a neutron star in the lab, that there is the same amount of evidence for a neutron star as there is for God.

Is that really what you are saying?
Click to expand...


What I was saying is a neutron star is a logical extrapolation of known matter as a function of pressure. It is also possible to make neutrons in the lab by various means and look at the output. Dark matter and dark energy is totally different, since there is a huge gap with respect to extrapolation of known things in the lab. We can see a neutron up close and personal. We can't see dark energy or dark matter to start experiments to make sure this extrapolates to distant observations.

The neutron star was postulated by first learning about neutrons. The astral observation fit an extrapolation from the lab. The neutron star (1934) was not discovered before the neutron was seen in the lab (1932). The neutron was postured as early as 1920. Once we knew about the neutron, it became the ideal candidate to explain what would become the observation called the neutron star; lab first.

God is extrapolated from global observations like the creation of life, and the formation of the universe, both of which elude science. This starting before the lab is similar to dark matter and dark energy. The neutron and then the neutron star followed a different path, with the known/tangible extrapolated to the far away. Science expects God in the lab first then it will accept extrapolation. But it waives this for dark matter/energy.

If I see a cloud in the shape of a duck, and others also see this, it exists. But this will not extrapolate to the lab. There is nothing in the known lab data that will serve as a basis for this observation, other than the idea of random. Nor can it be reverse engineered in the lab, after the fact.

If we found alien technology, made of materials and technology we never saw before, that is totally without precedent, we would begin with a broad consensus of speculation, the experts speak their 2 cents. The best 2 cents will be agreed upon. We would then try to narrow this down in the lab, where new understanding will appear based on tangible things we find. The original theory will be replaced as things unfold.

Hypothetically, say we find dark matter/energy in the lab, this is only step one, since we now need to define the properties of this material under various and similar conditions. Nature has a way of throwing curve balls which extrapolate in unexpected ways. So be open minded. This is why it is easier to get the curve balls in the lab first, and then one is ready to explain the distant.
 
wellwisher said:
What I was saying is a neutron star is a logical extrapolation of known matter as a function of pressure. It is also possible to make neutrons in the lab by various means and look at the output. Dark matter and dark energy is totally different, since there is a huge gap with respect to extrapolation of known things in the lab. We can see a neutron up close and personal. We can't see dark energy or dark matter to start experiments to make sure this extrapolates to distant observations.

The neutron star was postulated by first learning about neutrons. The astral observation fit an extrapolation from the lab. The neutron star (1934) was not discovered before the neutron was seen in the lab (1932). The neutron was postured as early as 1920. Once we knew about the neutron, it became the ideal candidate to explain what would become the observation called the neutron star; lab first.
Click to expand...

Come on. You haul out our insistance on "the lab" whenever there is something you don't like. So you think that the fact that neutrons were discovered in the lab means we don't need to make a neutron star in the lab? Fine, we can test gravity in the lab so a natural extrpolation is when we observe the rotation of galaxies it is obvious that there must be unseen matter adding to the gravity of the galaxy.

God is extrapolated from global observations like the creation of life, and the formation of the universe, both of which elude science. This starting before the lab is similar to dark matter and dark energy. The neutron and then the neutron star followed a different path, with the known/tangible extrapolated to the far away. Science expects God in the lab first then it will accept extrapolation. But it waives this for dark matter/energy.
Click to expand...

No there is no evidence of God. You cannot extroplate God from the fact of the universes existence. There is no reason to think that there is an entity that made the universe - none.
Gravity can be tested in the lab, the behaviour of large objects such as galaxies show evidence of a huge amount of gravity that has no observable source - dark matter is a logical extrapolation, it may be that there is something else going on here, but the evidence is certainly mounting that dark matter is real. The search is on for finding dark matter in the lab - your 'holy grail'.

If I see a cloud in the shape of a duck, and others also see this, it exists. But this will not extrapolate to the lab. There is nothing in the known lab data that will serve as a basis for this observation, other than the idea of random. Nor can it be reverse engineered in the lab, after the fact.
Click to expand...

You have said this a few times and I really don't get your point.

If we found alien technology, made of materials and technology we never saw before, that is totally without precedent, we would begin with a broad consensus of speculation, the experts speak their 2 cents. The best 2 cents will be agreed upon. We would then try to narrow this down in the lab, where new understanding will appear based on tangible things we find. The original theory will be replaced as things unfold.
Click to expand...

Yeah.

Hypothetically, say we find dark matter/energy in the lab, this is only step one, since we now need to define the properties of this material under various and similar conditions. Nature has a way of throwing curve balls which extrapolate in unexpected ways. So be open minded. This is why it is easier to get the curve balls in the lab first, and then one is ready to explain the distant.
Click to expand...

The theory of General Relativity was developed with no lab work. It was pure theory and pure mathematics. Einstein said that gravity curved space with no evidence at all other than the mathematics. The first conformation of this was almost 5 years later during an eclipse. We have never curved space "in the lab". Your insistence on conformation "in the lab" is only necessary for you when you do not want to accept something. Conformation "in the lab" is not a requirement of science. I say in the lab in quotations because the galaxy can be "the lab", but I don't think you would accept that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top