Re: Dark matter/energy - is it real?
- From: throopw@xxxxxxxxx (Wayne Throop)
- Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 04:26:16 GMT
::: Except that we could see that energy was disappearing. Dark matter
::: claims that 90% of the universe is missing, yet we do not see any
::: physical process missing in our experiments.
:: Of course there is. The physical process that causes the centripetal
:: acceleration we see but can't account for. It's missing. There has
:: to be one, else conservation of momentum etc is all wrong.
: "Shawn Wilson" <Ikonoqlast@xxxxxxx>
: No, there isn't. If you want to claim dark matter, then it can't be
: created by any physical process we know about, which leaves it a relic
: of the creation of the universe.
All matter is a relic of the creation of the universe.
: There being something doesn't mean that something is dark matter.
Same as there being missing energy and momentum doesn't mean
the something is a neutrino.
: Except there is no missing energy here.
How do you know? Just as it was with neutrinos, you don't.
There is SOME physical process there we don't see. There has to be,
because otherwise F doesn't equal ma, and you have problems with
energy and momentum conservation.
Same as neutrinos.
You haven't really provided much justification for that something
not being energy (that is, mass). Unless I'm missing something,
your main reason is that the various theories of what that mass might
be each have some problems. But these problems are far from fatal, yet.
:: Your solution is "throw the gravity out with the bathwater".
: Gravity is the bathwater. It's a theory that doesn't work.
Just like particle physics didn't work... until neutrinos were added.
:: You seem to want to save it at the expense of other theories that
:: *do* work, and break them.
Just like physicists wanted to save particle physics, at the expense
of competing theories. And what theories do work, besids ad-hockery?
Just saying that the force acts like thus-and-so formula with distance,
which seems to strongly characterize proposed gravity-is-wrong solutions,
isn't really a coherent theory at all.
: Easier all around to simply break gravity.
Why? What does it gain you? "You get the right movements" isn't
actually that large an advantage over getting the right movements
by putting extra mass in the necessary places.
: Dark matter supposedly makes up 90% of the universe, this isn't a
: small discrepancy.
So? Why does the numerical size of the specific discrepancy matter?
Why is it necessary that the universe consist of mostly things that
interact with EM, and not mostly something else?
If the only discrepancy was the pioneer probe, would your conclusion
be any different?
Note well, I'm not claiming einsteinian gravity must be true. But your
justification for saying that it must be wrong enough to totally discard is
not as strong as you seem to think.
Wayne Throop throopw@xxxxxxxxx http://sheol.org/throopw
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Dark matter/energy - is it real?
- From: Shawn Wilson
- Re: Dark matter/energy - is it real?
- References:
- Dark matter/energy - is it real?
- From: Tue Sorensen
- Re: Dark matter/energy - is it real?
- From: Erik Max Francis
- Re: Dark matter/energy - is it real?
- From: Shawn Wilson
- Re: Dark matter/energy - is it real?
- From: Erik Max Francis
- Re: Dark matter/energy - is it real?
- From: Shawn Wilson
- Re: Dark matter/energy - is it real?
- From: Wayne Throop
- Re: Dark matter/energy - is it real?
- From: Shawn Wilson
- Re: Dark matter/energy - is it real?
- From: Wayne Throop
- Re: Dark matter/energy - is it real?
- From: Shawn Wilson
- Dark matter/energy - is it real?
- Prev by Date: Re: Dark matter/energy - is it real?
- Next by Date: Re: Dark matter/energy - is it real?
- Previous by thread: Re: Dark matter/energy - is it real?
- Next by thread: Re: Dark matter/energy - is it real?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|