Ditching Dark Matter

The Guardian ^ | Thursday February 13, 2003 | Marcus Chown

[eno_]

I hear you. I read The elegant Universe hoping to find that String or M Thoery was not so ugly as I thought. It is hideous, and not very predicitive. It is more like a framework for kludges than a theory.

Whereas if this gravitational effect, which is visible to anyone with a telescope, can be linked to, for example, a theory of how gravity operates or is transmitted between masses, then you really might have something.

[ggekko]

The 'multi-verse' concept appears to me to be abnother case of having a tendency of prefering a much more complicated theory over a simpler one of equal explanatory power because the philosophical implications of the Anthropic principle in a single Universe are distasteful to some Cosmologists.

It is helpful to remember that Cosmology is utlimately is speculative branch of Physics. We cannot re-create the Bing Bang in a lab (at least to my knowledge).

[Stefan Stackhouse]

It intrigues me that standing, doing nothing, is identical to experiencing 1 "g" of acceleration. Why would this be?

The only reason it doesn't "feel" like you are accelerating is because of the resistance of the earth's surface at your feet. Step off an aircraft a few thousand feet up from that same surface, and the sensation of 1 g of acceleration will suddenly feel very real.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

It appears we are both searching for the principle of the universe which isn't just a "framework for kudges!" Personally, I think higher dimensional dynamics has a lot of potential. You might enjoy checking it out. If you do, please be sure to follow the publications option.

[Tallguy]

But there is nothing wrong with writing an equation to fit the data.

It's still just an equation searching for a theory. Maybe more will come of it if others become interested.

[norton]

Hope this isn't a repeat, first try was "good by'd" by AOL.

What I meant to comment on is the stonewall that gets thrown up when a 'new' or at least non-orthidox idea is put forward.

There is nothing to DIS-prove this change to the formula, it does seem to fit what can be observed. The next step shold be to attempt to repeat or to provide a theory to test over time, not to jump up and say - 'can't be', 'not in accordance with theory' etc.

YOU did not say those things, scholors too often DO say those things. Since those same scholors, or their cousins in another field, still can't prove Darwin - I'd say they might benefit from getting out more...looking past their graduate thesis for something new.

[Phaedrus]

Dark Matter seems so much like a fudge factor, changing as needed etc. We are missing something fundamental.

[spunkets]

"It intrigues me that standing, doing nothing, is identical to experiencing 1 "g" of acceleration. Why would this be?"

Because the floor is also exerting an acceleration opposing the direction of gravity. On the macroscopic scale, you don't notice it, until you get tired of course, or things start sagging. On the microscopic scale, the accelerations of gravity and the rebounding floor are noticeable. In the floor, the increased tension increases the vibrational frequencies of the fibers. In the person, muscle tension increases and energy must be expended to accelerate all the parts back up. Different muscles in the group tense and relax to maintain the stance.

4 dimensional space is what folks experience everyday. Some think they only experience 3. They just don't realize, or make a conscious note of the 4th. Without the forth everything would be black, no perception and no consciousness at all would be possible. Not only would you not be able to percieve FR posts, you'd have no thoughts. That's all because without the 4th dimension of time, concepts like animation, motion and change aren't possible.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the explanation!

You got me interested in the subject so I did a little browsing around and found several interesting articles on avionics and ran into this article which I though was particularly interesting in how they achieve zero gravity.

The standard acceleration of gravity is not exactly 1, but probably most people wouldn't deal with it at that level.

My observation about not "sensing" the fourth dimension, should have probably spoken to the paradox of special relativity. Space/time sense is observer specific, i.e. per our own light cone.

[spunkets]

Thanks for the links, those I know and understand. There are some I don't though, and can't explain:

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart..."

There is a puzzle.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply! You said:

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart..."

There is a puzzle.

I see that passage as a clue rather than a puzzle. For years on the forum I've posted this:

Space and time are part of the creation and not something in which the Creator exists.

Being outside of space/time and all that we perceive as the natural realm, God is not bound by the arrow of time (much less space, particles, fields, etc.) and thus can speak of the future as if it were the past:

That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past. – Eccl 3:15

That is also why He cannot lie, because His affirmations are over all of time, from our space/time coordinates. If this were not so, then He could have lifted His own curse on Adamic man rather than require Christ’s sacrifice.

In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; - Tts 1:2

To the contrary, Christ’s future sacrifice (from our space/time coordinates) was part of Creation: And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. – Rev 13:8

In my view, science confirms the Scriptures: Freeper Views on Origins. Please feel free to post your views to the collection. Thanks!