Re: Look-alike Q
- From: Occidental <Occidental@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
On Apr 1, 7:49 am, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 31, 8:29 pm, Occidental <Occiden...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 31, 11:20 am, Occidental <Occiden...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But what would have to happen for scientific explanation to fail?
On Mar 31, 1:06 pm, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In the specific case in question there is no scientific(The case here is the anomalous orbits of stars around galaxies)
explanation, so there is nothing here to fail.
Sure there is - an unknown, invisible, gravitating form of matter of
total mass far greater (in general) than that of the visible stars.
This conjecture has been tested and confirmed by observing the
"lensing" effect such galaxies have on the light from other galaxies,
and by examining other evidence.
Last I heard all the evidence remains consistent with MOND, and
some (like the trajectories of stars in satellite galaxies
falling into the milkyway from above its plane of rotation) fits
better with MOND than dark matter.
The problem with MOND is that it cannot explain gravitational lensing
effects; DM can. Which is why I added a reference to lensing in my
original post. But this is not the point; your assertion was "In the
specific case in question there is no scientific explanation, so there
is nothing here to fail." - obviously untrue.
Also you talk about "an unknown, invisible, gravitating form of
matter" implying that has some specific meaning. For all
anybody knows galaxies may give rise to gigantic virtual particles
that have gravitational effects that reduce to MOND.
But MOND does not imply that the mass of a galaxy is any larger than
would be expected from the combined masses of the stars it contains;
if the Galaxy rotation curve problem is caused by massive particles,
virtual or otherwise, rather than MOND, the mass of a galaxy will be
higher. So the latter case does not reduce to MOND.
There is no "contradiction" between GR and QM. The problem betweenThis sort ofthing happens frequently in many trivial cases that are never
resolved. There are also some large glaring cases such as the
fundamental contradictions between relativity and quantum
physics.
them is that they cannot be combined into a single theory. Each works
fine in its own domain.
Well physicists with tenured positions at large universities
have written that that spooky instantaneous action at a
distance associated with entangled particles flatly contradicts
the relativistic speed limit of C. Dare I ask who I should
believe?
I don't care whom you believe, but if you believe "physicists with
tenured positions at large universities" you should name them and give
a citation. I have often read and heard entangled states discussed by
those who ought to know what they are talking about, and they
invariably say/write "This appears to violate the principle of
relativity that no information can be transmitted faster than the
speed of light, but...." and go on to explain why it doesn't. Maybe
your sources should have their tenure revoked.
And since I find myself talking about instantaneous action at a
distance, can you show that this is not one of the ways God
interacts with our universe?
Who?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Look-alike Q
- From: Friar Broccoli
- Re: Look-alike Q
- References:
- Re: Look-alike Q
- From: Occidental
- Re: Look-alike Q
- From: Friar Broccoli
- Re: Look-alike Q
- Prev by Date: Re: A.I.
- Next by Date: Re: Comparing Creationism against Darwinism
- Previous by thread: Re: Look-alike Q
- Next by thread: Re: Look-alike Q
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
