PDA

View Full Version : Hubble Helps Make a 3-D Map of Dark Matter



Fraser
2007-Jan-09, 01:55 AM
A team of astronomers has created a three-dimensional map of dark matter distribution across the Universe. This map gives some of the best evidence that normal matter, like you and me, stars and planets, accumulate around the densest regions of dark matter. ...

Read the full blog entry (http://www.universetoday.com/2007/01/08/hubble-helps-make-a-3-d-map-of-dark-matter/)

imported_Pete
2007-Jan-09, 09:21 AM
I am accustomed to mainstream media dumbing down science explanations but I watched a BBC news item on this story last night. It said that the measurements for the 3D map were done by firing a beam of light from the Hubble and then tracing how its path became distorted by the dark matter it passed through. The diagram attached to this story seems to show a similar thing.

I'm sure this must be incorrect or the survey would take billions of years to complete wouldn't it? It would also require the Hubble to be pretty good at tracing a single small beam of light accross the entire cosmos.

How do "Science Correspondents" get the job?

"Cars work by collecting magnesium and concentrating it into an invisible force field that simply drags the whole planet along under your wheels. Two cars travelling in different directions risk tearing the planet in half - which is why we have traffic lights."

I suppose I should just be happy that it was on the news at all.

chi
2007-Jan-09, 02:58 PM
Kinda looks like oil in water

GOURDHEAD
2007-Jan-09, 03:08 PM
How can they have determined how much of the effect they appear to have observed is ought but artifacts of their procedure? Ordinary matter behavior allows them to do what they did. If the ordinary matter weren't there, they could not have concluded their guessing.

Fraser
2007-Jan-09, 03:09 PM
I guess if you look at the graphic, it seems as if there's a beam coming out of Hubble. Where do I apply for that science correspondent's job?

Jerry
2007-Jan-09, 04:32 PM
Must be a warped beam...or a warped correspondent.

Dark Matter remains an interpretation of deviations in the behavior of visible matter from what is expected. Am I correct in assuming this map does not differentiate between baryonic forms of 'dark matter', such as large cells of hydrogen or helium gas, and 'galactic dark matter' which cannot be baryonic, and remains undefined?

John Mendenhall
2007-Jan-09, 06:02 PM
I guess if you look at the graphic, it seems as if there's a beam coming out of Hubble. Where do I apply for that science correspondent's job?

Too late, Fraser, I always wanted to be a science correspondent and now I are one.

Seriously, this research is similar to the Bullet galaxy work. The DM folks start with the assumption that the light bending is due to dark matter, then (maybe) demonstrate light bending, then go "Look, this can only be due to dark matter." Around and around in circles. Show me the money? Hah! Show me the matter! I agree that there *appears* to be much more mass in the universe than we have seen, so far. But the emphasis is on 'appears'. Frankly, I think they should cite 'The Emperor's New Clothes" as a reference.

John Mendenhall
2007-Jan-09, 06:04 PM
Must be a warped beam...or a warped correspondent.

And I thought my jibe was bad.

blueshift
2007-Jan-10, 03:10 AM
Here is a better explanation of that article:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0108/p02s01-usgn.html

Also, in an S&T (July 2006, page 24) article entitled "How the Milky Way Got Its Tilt",
European astrnomers, Ignacio Trujillo (UK), Conrado Carretero and Santiago Patiri (Spain)
were all able to identify 201 edge-on or face-on spiral galaxies whose disks are
perpendicular to the walls and filaments that dark matter's gravity is proposed to have created.

From Ursa Major to Centaurus on a Sky Atlas 2000 deluxe edition the galaxies are shown
in red and seems to show our local great wall according to the article. Their research
appreared in the April 1st edition of Astrophysical Journal Letters.

This is considered support for the cold dark matter theory.

bill mendenhall
2007-Jan-10, 04:55 PM
I like the puddle of oil idea. Perhaps the Universe has a giant oil slick.

Mars_Admirer
2007-Jan-11, 10:12 AM
09-January-2007 06:02 PM

I agree with John Mendenhall's view posted at the time listed above.

Much of modern astronomy and space exploration has become meaningless in its research and pursuits, far removed from the priorities of majority of people on this planet, on whose money and sweat and blood all this so-called scientific temper feeds anyway.

For proof, just look at the main stories on this very website (Universe Today) for the last one year.

Can anyone explain how any ONE of the insights or findings or inferences or whatever discussed in thousands of 'news' reports is geared to improve the life of humankind at large? It is a shame some scientific blokes even question this point, saying that not every 'endeavour' is meant to improve the human condition, blah blah blah. As if the chaps related to astronomy/space pursuits belong to some other dimension unrelated to this planet and its people.

Can anyone justify the cost involved at all? As someone on this forum said, everyone in this space-astronomy racket seems to be going round and round, having taken off from a wrong starting block.

So, howsomuch ever 'progress' is made in this direction, it will all come to naught. For, the starting point itself is wrong. When you multiply zero with a huge number, the end result still will be zero. That is the reality the scientific community simply refuses to see, madly obsessed as they are with defending and justifying and rationalizing their indefensible, laughable and questionable 'achievements'.

The sad truth is, in spite of centuries of evolution and progress, there is still no consensus on a simple aspect like the purpose of life in human form. Which is why, anything goes. Like the space-astronomy racket in the name of science.

But once we reach a consensus on the very basic aspect, everything would fall in place. But then, this space-astronomy genie has 'misevolved' to such monstrous proportions that elementary truths appear, well, naive and laughable.

Is it too much of an ask to expect people to reach a consensus on the top priorities of the world at large, if not in a spiritual sense, at least in a socio-economic sense, given the concept of globalisation and ubiquitous mass media?

Universe Today can play the role of an activist in this context. Publish only stories that deserve to be published. Or, at least, at the beginning of every story, include a Human Relevance Rating (HRR). For a truly meaningful and useful insights or information or research, give the top rating of five stars. For mumbo-jumbo stuff, give no HRR or just one HRR star. That should knock some sense into the 'undrillable' brains of the scientific community.

John Mendenhall
2007-Jan-11, 05:34 PM
09-January-2007 06:02 PM

Or, at least, at the beginning of every story, include a Human Relevance Rating (HRR). For a truly meaningful and useful insights or information or research, give the top rating of five stars. For mumbo-jumbo stuff, give no HRR or just one HRR star. That should knock some sense into the 'undrillable' brains of the scientific community.

Strong views. And I always think I'm going out on a limb. HRR rating is not a bad idea, but you might just get arguments about relevance instead science quality. Personally, anything that involves off-Earth colonies or trips to A. Centauri is first on my list, followed by space elevators, environmental concerns, overpopulation, and so forth.

Amber Robot
2007-Jan-11, 06:57 PM
Can anyone explain how any ONE of the insights or findings or inferences or whatever discussed in thousands of 'news' reports is geared to improve the life of humankind at large?

I ask myself a similar question whenever I see a golf tournament on TV.

loglo
2007-Jan-12, 12:16 AM
I ask myself a similar question whenever I see a golf tournament on TV.

I've always said we spend far too much on sport. We should ban all sport and force everyone to spend their money on more worthy pursuits. Like music or cinema or making themselves look better. :D

Mars_Admirer
2007-Jan-12, 03:38 AM
Hi John, Loglo, Amber:

I can understand your views. Know something? These astronomy-space 'experts' have an uncanny resemblance to pseudo-spiritualists, religious fanatics, evangelistic conmen! They all thrive on mumbo-jumbo that an ordinary / average lay person cannot understand inside out, much less contest or question. But the community peddling such content knows what's going on. They know exactly what they are up to. They know the game they are indulging in, and at whose expense. From the scientific community's point of view, it is a case of "Us vs Them". 'Them' as in Suckers. Such un-understandable 'knowledge' is the stuff that superstitions, blind beliefs, sleights, mind-magic are also made of. Just read the Dark Matter report again. These guys have nothing better to do on a planet ravaged by numerous challenges than to presumably 'study' what's going on among hundreds of thousands of unapproachable galaxies. It's time someone must ask them: What for? How does this science fit in?

I don't know if Loglo was sarcastic. But come to think of it, has not sport too degenerated into a racket like astronomy-space sciences? Sportsmen who are in sport solely to pursue excellence in human skill are an exception rather than the rule. Most sports are 'fixed' these days. Betting is even legal in some places. Sportsmen enter the arena with an eye on possible endorsement deals that might follow. Celebrity, handsome British footballer David Beckham gets $250 million to play in Los Angeles, never mind the (in)effectiveness of his calibre, never mind his (dismal) track record in guiding his team to wins. TV beams sports not to inspire people but to deliver addictive content that can grab eyeballs for cheeky, slimy advertisers, and to retain TRPs.

Earth sux these days. It's time for regeneration. Let the moon close in and bang against our planet. Let there be creative destruction. Amen!

Amber Robot
2007-Jan-12, 04:06 AM
Let the moon close in and bang against our planet.

Actually, the moon is moving away from the Earth.

Mars_Admirer
2007-Jan-13, 04:21 AM
Wow! If Moon is moving away, it is possible that even Earth can move away, or move toward Sun. Either way, there could be creative destruction. If moon moves away, earth will stop rotating, or something else might happen. But creative destruction is inescapable. That is pragmatic optimism at its sublime best for you. There is still hope, yay! Celebrate!

blueshift
2007-Jan-13, 05:23 AM
09-January-2007 06:02 PM

I agree with John Mendenhall's view posted at the time listed above.

Much of modern astronomy and space exploration has become meaningless in its research and pursuits, far removed from the priorities of majority of people on this planet, on whose money and sweat and blood all this so-called scientific temper feeds anyway.

For proof, just look at the main stories on this very website (Universe Today) for the last one year.

Can anyone explain how any ONE of the insights or findings or inferences or whatever discussed in thousands of 'news' reports is geared to improve the life of humankind at large? It is a shame some scientific blokes even question this point, saying that not every 'endeavour' is meant to improve the human condition, blah blah blah. As if the chaps related to astronomy/space pursuits belong to some other dimension unrelated to this planet and its people.

Can anyone justify the cost involved at all? As someone on this forum said, everyone in this space-astronomy racket seems to be going round and round, having taken off from a wrong starting block.

So, howsomuch ever 'progress' is made in this direction, it will all come to naught. For, the starting point itself is wrong. When you multiply zero with a huge number, the end result still will be zero. That is the reality the scientific community simply refuses to see, madly obsessed as they are with defending and justifying and rationalizing their indefensible, laughable and questionable 'achievements'.

The sad truth is, in spite of centuries of evolution and progress, there is still no consensus on a simple aspect like the purpose of life in human form. Which is why, anything goes. Like the space-astronomy racket in the name of science.

But once we reach a consensus on the very basic aspect, everything would fall in place. But then, this space-astronomy genie has 'misevolved' to such monstrous proportions that elementary truths appear, well, naive and laughable.

Is it too much of an ask to expect people to reach a consensus on the top priorities of the world at large, if not in a spiritual sense, at least in a socio-economic sense, given the concept of globalisation and ubiquitous mass media?

Universe Today can play the role of an activist in this context. Publish only stories that deserve to be published. Or, at least, at the beginning of every story, include a Human Relevance Rating (HRR). For a truly meaningful and useful insights or information or research, give the top rating of five stars. For mumbo-jumbo stuff, give no HRR or just one HRR star. That should knock some sense into the 'undrillable' brains of the scientific community.However, there are applications that spacetime physics does apply.
Without special relativity there would be no television. In the
old CRT models the engineers had to take relativity in account
or you wouldn't be able to focus the electron beam properly onto
the screen.

Space dictates what shapes are allowed in this universe and what
changes in shapes are allowed, truncations and stellations alike.
The study of spacetime structure will aid biochemists in the
future by reducing the number of experiments they're wasting time
on.

By understanding how space controls how molecules and cells
truncate and stellate when a vaccine does its work,
patterns will likely display a
characteristical signature that can give clues as to how to
design future vaccines for any virus and reduce the number of experiments
biochemists do unnecessarily in the lab. Dark matter research is
a part of spatial structure and understanding it more thorougly
will only help speed up the advances in this field.

http://www.angelfire.com/mt/marksomers/45a.html

On board Columbia was an
experiment that showed that moss developes a Fibannaci spiral
pattern in its florets in microgravity that it does not possess on
the ground. Sunflowers brought aboard lost their spiral patterns
in microgravity. Molecular shapes are clearly influenced by
spacetime. This reinforces the need to penetrate this field of
study.

If supersymmetry is proven to be true, then a future device that
takes electrons and turns them into selectrons and back again
into electrons could be developed and give us something right out
of science fiction teleportation. Beam me up Scotty. Better still,
trapped miners could be beamed right out of their impending death.

Still think science is wasting time? Science does make appications
to the real world. I would check in on Argonne's site to see
just where.

http://www.anl.gov/

A recent study at Argonne has worked out the secrets of how fruit
flies develope the incredible strength to stay up in high winds
that you may have noticed buzzing near you while you sit on a windy
day. Nano tech scientists are now taking this information and are
trying to design mini-aircraft. Secondly, by utilizing X-ray beams
to probe the muscles in the flies allowed researchers to make a
movie of the molecular changes in wing muscles as they lengthen
and shorten to drive the wings back and forth 200 times per second.
Interactions of various proteins as muscles stretch and contract
was revealed that was inknown before. Human cardiac muscle is
constructed similarly. Repairs will become easier in the future.

Synchrotron X-ray research into the structure of high speed fuel
injector sprays reveals first evidence of supersonic shock waves
in these sprays. Fuel injector efficiency and reductions in engine
emissions are going to be in the near future. Too many other
things to list here but I think you get the picture.

Mars_Admirer
2007-Jan-15, 01:23 AM
However, there are applications that spacetime physics does apply.
Without special relativity there would be no television. In the
old CRT models the engineers had to take relativity in account
or you wouldn't be able to focus the electron beam properly onto
the screen.

Space dictates what shapes are allowed in this universe and what
changes in shapes are allowed, truncations and stellations alike.
The study of spacetime structure will aid biochemists in the
future by reducing the number of experiments they're wasting time
on.

By understanding how space controls how molecules and cells
truncate and stellate when a vaccine does its work,
patterns will likely display a
characteristical signature that can give clues as to how to
design future vaccines for any virus and reduce the number of experiments
biochemists do unnecessarily in the lab. Dark matter research is
a part of spatial structure and understanding it more thorougly
will only help speed up the advances in this field.

http://www.angelfire.com/mt/marksomers/45a.html

On board Columbia was an
experiment that showed that moss developes a Fibannaci spiral
pattern in its florets in microgravity that it does not possess on
the ground. Sunflowers brought aboard lost their spiral patterns
in microgravity. Molecular shapes are clearly influenced by
spacetime. This reinforces the need to penetrate this field of
study.

If supersymmetry is proven to be true, then a future device that
takes electrons and turns them into selectrons and back again
into electrons could be developed and give us something right out
of science fiction teleportation. Beam me up Scotty. Better still,
trapped miners could be beamed right out of their impending death.

Still think science is wasting time? Science does make appications
to the real world. I would check in on Argonne's site to see
just where.

http://www.anl.gov/

A recent study at Argonne has worked out the secrets of how fruit
flies develope the incredible strength to stay up in high winds
that you may have noticed buzzing near you while you sit on a windy
day. Nano tech scientists are now taking this information and are
trying to design mini-aircraft. Secondly, by utilizing X-ray beams
to probe the muscles in the flies allowed researchers to make a
movie of the molecular changes in wing muscles as they lengthen
and shorten to drive the wings back and forth 200 times per second.
Interactions of various proteins as muscles stretch and contract
was revealed that was inknown before. Human cardiac muscle is
constructed similarly. Repairs will become easier in the future.

Synchrotron X-ray research into the structure of high speed fuel
injector sprays reveals first evidence of supersonic shock waves
in these sprays. Fuel injector efficiency and reductions in engine
emissions are going to be in the near future. Too many other
things to list here but I think you get the picture.

==============================

Hi Blueshift: I see your points. Some of them are valid. It is no one's case that science and technology are by themselves evil or bad. But they have to fit in with the larger picture.

The Big Picture here is a global view of the planet, with 'X' number of people living on it, with very specific needs and clear priorities. As it is today, we have only 'x' number of resources, in terms of manpower, wealth, sources of revenue/income.

If space-astronomy sciences could faciliate anything, it is this view of the Big Picture, one of Global Village. Mathematics and physics should help to get the arithmetic right. Philosophy should help implement concepts like spirituality and democracy correctly. All have to recognise that they are not only interconnected but also interdependent.

But, evidently, every branch of discipline tends to grow as if it is cut off from others, in a vacuum, unaccountable to the rest. This is what skews the Big Picture, and causes untold harm to others.

Every science and initiative/research has to be subjected to two factors: 1) Sense of belongingness to the same Big Picture and real-time conscious awareness of this fact; 2) Cost-benefit equation in the context of overall Big Picture's main priorities. Any other method contravenes with the professed justification of globalisation, etc.

It is not as if others are not suffering because of each discipline's law-unto-oneself attitude. Only, it is not as tangible and pronounced as, say, a chocolate bar in front of one's eyes. But that does not mean every discipline has to wear blinkers and pretend "out of sight, out of mind" and merrily carry on with its activities in isolation, caring two hoots for the Big Picture.

It is not a rocket science either. All one has to do it trace the entire A-Z route of global wealth-creation, which provides finances to the astronomy-space sciences' budgets. Here again, the tendency is to limit one' vision to the immediate superior department, or agency, or institution, or government. But you need to stretch your vision and go beyond those narrow boundaries and get a global vision.

Imagine you plonk yourself on the Moon armed with a financial telescope, and observe the trends and goings-on on Earth. Get the idea? What do you discern? You will see how wealth is generated, from where, how it flows in terms of origin and end-use, so on. You will also probably see where all this will lead to if allowed to continue.

With that as the background, let's examine your argument now point by point:

1) Television: It has done more harm than good. In percentage terms: peddles useless content and propoganda, distort values, degrades life and dumbs down people's intellect science-wise as well as mentally. Another classic example of Western myopia in terms of going ahead with inventions without factoring in long-term consequences and real needs of the majority of people on this planet.

2) "The study of spacetime structure will aid biochemists in the
future by reducing the number of experiments they're wasting time
on."

Specious argument!

You don't commit a second mistake if the intent is to right the first mistake. If you are sure you are wasting your time on something, the solution is to figure out the priorities, facts and figures, percentages, cost-benefit in terms of the Big Picture, and fix the problem. Let me be more specific. If biochemists are 'wasting' huge resources on say cancer research, first figure out how many people on this planet actually suffer cancer (in terms of percentage); compare it with the Big Priorities, and available resources. Also, focus on the cause, not symptoms and symptom-management. Remove the cause. Usually, the cause lies within, not outside, not outside solar system and the Milky Way. All problems and diseases arise when the Natural Law is violated. Know the Natural Law. Period. Nature has built-in immune system that can resist and destroy each and every virus. If there are innumberable diseases and disorders, it is because Nature has been tinkered with, either by oneself, or due to others / external forces, in so many ways. This is reinforced by the fact that sunflowers brought aboard Columbia lost their spiral patterns in microgravity. They will. Elementary, Dr. Watson. "Molecular shapes are clearly influenced by spacetime," you write. I would say you don't have to tinker with Nature to understand that there will be consequences. You don't have to study spacetime to understand Nature. Know thyself.

3) Supersymmetry, electron-selectron, trapped miners, etc: How many miners are there on this planet, in terms of percentage? What do they mine? What are the Big Picture priorities and do various mining activities contribute directly and positively to the Big Picture priorities? What is the cost of this supersymmetry research? What are the Big Picture priorities; what is needed to fulfil them; and what is the extent of available resources at the present moment? That should settle this conundrum once and for all.

Well I can discuss more, but I trust you get the point by now.

Let's face it: Western sciences feed on resources generated / extracted from Third World in one way or another, by hook or by crook, and splurge them on activities designed to strengthen the First World, at the same time weakening the very Third World that feeds it. It doesn't require rocket science to understand what would entail if you bite the hand that feeds you.

This debate can go on till kingdom come, but the point is, we have reached a point where global consensus on fundamental questions like Top Priorities, Meaning and Purpose of Life in Human Form, is not only possible, plausible but essential. Else, the path to destruction will be reached at the same speed with which crass materialism and pro-West globalisation are pursued. You will have killed the goose that could have laid innumberable golden eggs. That will be the Ultimate Paradox.

blueshift
2007-Jan-15, 06:27 AM
==============================

:

1) Television: It has done more harm than good. In percentage terms: peddles useless content and propoganda, distort values, degrades life and dumbs down people's intellect science-wise as well as mentally. Another classic example of Western myopia in terms of going ahead with inventions without factoring in long-term consequences and real needs of the majority of people on this planet. You must live in the United States and you have very few educational video tapes and DVDs at home. Network television is not viewed by the majority at all.

My point concerning television had nothing to do with your point. All technological developments, including farming, had drawbacks that accompanied the gains they brought. The Law of Conservation of Energy points to the fact that no gains can be made in life...You can only exchange with the universe. Television, like farming, has pluses and minuses. Even handwriting has pluses and minuses.

The bands of Africans called the Dobe refused to grow into tribes and rejected farming because they felt that it made friendly animals into enemies..Giraffes, elephants and ostriches were now at odds with humanity. Secondly, the Dobe have on their hands something Bill Gates knows nothing about...free time. They only need to work 19 hours per week to survive and do not value property since it can only hinder their nomadic life. They do not accept handouts and life expectancy matches the States. They do not have any brain diseases since they do not ingest any wheat or gluten into their diet. All grains they see as evil.

Yet, even this has the smack of human chauvanism. Humans have brought genocides long before television came along and nature dropped a number of draughts and floods and wiped out the entire Minoan civilization with a volcano.

Television is no less evil and has many good applications. The use of them in operating rooms to aid surgical procedures has saved many lives, including my own.


2) "The study of spacetime structure will aid biochemists in the
future by reducing the number of experiments they're wasting time
on."

Specious argument!

You don't commit a second mistake if the intent is to right the first mistake. If you are sure you are wasting your time on something, the solution is to figure out the priorities, facts and figures, percentages, cost-benefit in terms of the Big Picture, and fix the problem. Let me be more specific. If biochemists are 'wasting' huge resources on say cancer research, first figure out how many people on this planet actually suffer cancer (in terms of percentage); compare it with the Big Priorities, and available resources. Also, focus on the cause, not symptoms and symptom-management. Remove the cause.Right here you misread my entire intent. Reread it. You couldn't have opened up any of the links given and didn't read any of them. Cancer research is not a waste of time. But there are dead end roads many biochemists are presently taking because they fully admit they are not seeing the full picture that topology (space structure) can help them see better. My argument is that topology is going to make the cures for cancer and diseases come faster, not be ignored..


Usually, the cause lies within, not outside, not outside solar system and the Milky Way.No. The causes lie in both places. The study of stars has made us understand the subatomic world better and spectroscopy was developed by astronomers first and is now used in labs. On the other side of the coin is that particle physics has taught us a lot about collisions within our own star and the universe and gives us a hint as to how long we have and what we need to look out for. The study of planets has taught us about our own planet and the comparable climates on each has given us indicators concerning our own planet's health.


All problems and diseases arise when the Natural Law is violated. Know the Natural Law. Period. Nature has built-in immune system that can resist and destroy each and every virus. If there are innumberable diseases and disorders, it is because Nature has been tinkered with, either by oneself, or due to others / external forces, in so many ways. But tinkering with nature is a part of nature. Nature produced humans and technology's base. When a branch fell from a tree and a human picked it up to knock down fruit for consumption and sharing with one's family, he used technology provided by nature. Nature rearranges itself and so do humans. You are showing human chauvanism with these statements.


This is reinforced by the fact that sunflowers brought aboard Columbia lost their spiral patterns in microgravity. They will. Elementary, Dr. Watson. "Molecular shapes are clearly influenced by spacetime," you write. I would say you don't have to tinker with Nature to understand that there will be consequences. You don't have to study spacetime to understand Nature. Know thyself.Just what is the "self" but an invention of role-divided societies? To the ancients spirit was derived from moods that nature seem to express all around them. Monsoon rains, volcanoes, floods and thunderstorms all came but never in the same way twice. So they felt that moods entered and left people, never to return again. The happy you felt one day was not the same happy you felt at other times. When someone died they noticed that all moods passing through refused to visit that person and decided to leave them as prey for animals.


3) Supersymmetry, electron-selectron, trapped miners, etc: How many miners are there on this planet, in terms of percentage?Millions. Most humans on this planet are related to miners and most humans do not live in the States or Europe but are in developing countries were mining is big.


What do they mine?All the metals on the planet and all the coal.


What is the cost of this supersymmetry research? Not much. The military ate up 72 billion right out of my retirement fund and that was actually peanuts to us. Postal workeres overvested their retirement system by that amount and had plans to loan it to our own employer to help keep postage rates down but the president took it for the war. Supersymmetry does not cost anywhere near that. Quite often, in such journeys, the tools developed to search for some illusive goal winds up benefiting humans in another branch like medicine.




What are the Big Picture priorities; what is needed to fulfil them; and what is the extent of available resources at the present moment? That should settle this conundrum once and for all.

Well I can discuss more, but I trust you get the point by now.

Let's face it: Western sciences feed on resources generated / extracted from Third World in one way or another, by hook or by crook, and splurge them on activities designed to strengthen the First World, at the same time weakening the very Third World that feeds it. It doesn't require rocket science to understand what would entail if you bite the hand that feeds you.

This debate can go on till kingdom come, but the point is, we have reached a point where global consensus on fundamental questions like Top Priorities, Meaning and Purpose of Life in Human Form, is not only possible, plausible but essential. Else, the path to destruction will be reached at the same speed with which crass materialism and pro-West globalisation are pursued. You will have killed the goose that could have laid innumberable golden eggs. That will be the Ultimate Paradox.There is no ultimate paradox that hasn't been faced before. All empires came tumbling down with the mistake that walking along the same path and marching to the same drummer will bring us closer to one another. It doesn't. Familiarity breeds contempt. There is an old African saying, "If we all face the same direction and march straight ahead, lions will sneak up behind and devour us one at a time." We need others to see our blind spots and you are blind to the wave nature of science. Your attempt to prioritize things has an origin that lies in class division and cast systems and does not get a big picture you seek. The human race has mostly lived in isolation from one another for 4 million years. It is television that brought the whole concept of "big pictures" to humans.

Mars_Admirer
2007-Jan-16, 07:14 AM
Hi Blueshift,

Interesting points. Unwittingly, you seem to have reinforced what I had been saying all along.

Western sciences simply go ahead without thinking through, without an overview of the globe as one being, without awareness and regard for real priorities, without back-up plans and infrastructure to preempt or at least combat effectively the undesirable side-effects and consequences.

Don't get me wrong. I am not being nihilistic. Meaningful material progress is essential, of course.

Ancient genocides and natural disasters only prove my point. We already have had our plate of woes full. What's the grand idea in mindlessly adding to it through science and technology, instead of focusing attention and resources on replacing or mitigating woes on the plate?

Apologists for astronomy-space racket would like to argue/imagine that perceived 'benefits' of discoveries so far have done that, little realising that they have done the opposite. It's a case of good intent leading to hell.

Regarding cancer research, biochemists will think only that way (about external solutions, space structure, etc) bcz they are biochemists. They will think about solutions to a problem. For them, a problem (cancer disease) is a given.

Look at it the reverse way. Remove the causes that lead to the problem. Then there won't be any need for solutions, which will become redundant. That can be done by focusing on top priorities.

Your talk of stars, planets, subatomic world, Earth's lifespan and health almost made me laugh. If we knew and took care of our real priorities, we would not find ourselves worrying about our planet's health today. There would not have been any dire perceived need for space research towards that end. In just 200 years of mindless avarice, we have imperilled the health of a planet that has survived billions of years!!!

Do you need any more convincing to realise the importance of top priorities and the need to know oneself?

Regarding miners, "millions of miners" might seem a huge number in absolutist terms, but relatively, it is not. Moreover, they mine metals and coal, as you concede. Who (and how many) consume metals and coal, and why, we all know. We also know these activities are really optional, not essential, in the context of real priorities.

But having lived in this age for so long, we have come to delude ourselves into believing that these activities are essential and irreversible. But once we make a collective effort to focus our collective consciousness on the top priorities, everything would become clear and there would be clarity.

So, electron-selectron beaming, etc, to save imaginary or hypothetical trapped miners in future reflects our thinking, our concept and model of life and its purpose, in a sense. You might also like to read my post in the extrasolar planet's supersonic wind thread (esp. the need for clear, top-down perspective/overview).

Spending billions of dollars in one discipline without any clear purpose or relation to top priorities, and justifying such splurging with irrational claims that it 'may' lead to some unforeseen benefits in some other discipline, is an irresponsible attitude.

The human race lived in isolation for millenia and was relatively peaceful. It was much better off than it is now, all due to TV-induced concept of globalisation, which is basically Western civilisations looting, pillaging, plundering others through a multi-pronged thug-like approach consisting of subverted science, technology, politics, con-games, deceptions, lack of spiritual approach to life. TV has accelerated the greed within, with most people looking at this hitherto great planet as one big global market to be exploited, savaged to the hilt as soon as possible. I have already discussed in earlier posts other ills of popular TV content, so won't recount them here.

I would certainly welcome your views on why you think I am blind to the wave nature of science. If anything, I feel it is you who is besotted and obsessed with the particle/material aspect of matter.

The paradox is, if you want to enjoy the particle aspect, the one and only way is to recognize the parallel, pervasive wave nature and accord it its due, rather than ignoring, overlooking and tinkering it.

blueshift
2007-Jan-17, 04:48 AM
Hi Blueshift,

Interesting points. Unwittingly, you seem to have reinforced what I had been saying all along.

Western sciences simply go ahead without thinking through, without an overview of the globe as one being, without awareness and regard for real priorities, without back-up plans and infrastructure to preempt or at least combat effectively the undesirable side-effects and consequences.

Don't get me wrong. I am not being nihilistic. Meaningful material progress is essential, of course.

Ancient genocides and natural disasters only prove my point. They do not prove your point at all. You were seeking natural solutions and nature has given them. How do you plan to protect the planet from inbound asteroids? The dinosaurs were wiped right out.


Apologists for astronomy-space racket would like to argue/imagine that perceived 'benefits' of discoveries so far have done that, little realising that they have done the opposite. It's a case of good intent leading to hell. So you do not perceive a dialectic. Something is either good or bad to you.


Regarding cancer research, biochemists will think only that way (about external solutions, space structure, etc) bcz they are biochemists. They will think about solutions to a problem. No, science does not think about solutions or seeks any "truth". Science seeks falsification to find out what is less false.


Look at it the reverse way. Remove the causes that lead to the problem. Then there won't be any need for solutions, which will become redundant. That can be done by focusing on top priorities. Here you are assuming that cause and effect exists in the quantum world. It does not. Secondly, are you trying to tell me that something akin to a vegetarian diet will prevent cancer? It won't. Ask Linda McCarthy. A vegetable, tobacco, causes as much cancer as eating meat does. I was a vegetarian for 13 years and wound up with two colon operations. That diet is lethal to celiacs.


Your talk of stars, planets, subatomic world, Earth's lifespan and health almost made me laugh. If we knew and took care of our real priorities, we would not find ourselves worrying about our planet's health today. There would not have been any dire perceived need for space research towards that end. In just 200 years of mindless avarice, we have imperilled the health of a planet that has survived billions of years!!!The earth will survive until the sun expands into its red giant phase and life on earth will perish by 500 million years when our star heats up and boils the oceans away.


Do you need any more convincing to realise the importance of top priorities and the need to know oneself?The only reason someone tries to convince someone of something is because he or she has doubt concerning the matter. No one is shouting that the sunrise will not occur tomorrow because they are very sure that it will.


Regarding miners, "millions of miners" might seem a huge number in absolutist terms, but relatively, it is not. Moreover, they mine metals and coal, as you concede. Who (and how many) consume metals and coal, and why, we all know. We also know these activities are really optional, not essential, in the context of real priorities. Then why are you using them right now? There is mined material in the screen and in the motherboard of your computer. There is mined metal in the farm equipment that plowed and cultivated the food you eat.


But having lived in this age for so long, we have come to delude ourselves into believing that these activities are essential and irreversible. But once we make a collective effort to focus our collective consciousness on the top priorities, everything would become clear and there would be clarity. But to make a collective effort requires that you create a prototype, a working model, of a collective infrastructure presently not in existence in order to develope that focus..You need science.


So, electron-selectron beaming, etc, to save imaginary or hypothetical trapped miners in future reflects our thinking, our concept and model of life and its purpose, in a sense. You might also like to read my post in the extrasolar planet's supersonic wind thread (esp. the need for clear, top-down perspective/overview).[Again, that was but a small example. Argonne has done too much to print here and that is why I gave you their webpage which you have not investigated.[quote]

Spending billions of dollars in one discipline without any clear purpose or relation to top priorities, and justifying such splurging with irrational claims that it 'may' lead to some unforeseen benefits in some other discipline, is an irresponsible attitude.Billlions are being spent on a lot of disciplines. If we focus on humankind first we will kill them. This is the reason why experimenting with non-life forms should come first. Those experiments will reveal where life will be threatended. Life is the most complex science and the highest risk science so we must tread carefully before we experiment with it in low risk environments. When experimenting proves that it is safe to escalate the risk then we do so.


The human race lived in isolation for millenia and was relatively peaceful. It was much better off than it is now, all due to TV-induced concept of globalisation, which is basically Western civilisations looting, pillaging, plundering others through a multi-pronged thug-like approach consisting of subverted science, technology, politics, con-games, deceptions, lack of spiritual approach to life.There is no evidence to support that. Television has just brought to your attention what others were ignorant of years ago. This almost sounds like the lie humans tell themselves "It was better when I was young." Bunk. You didn't watch the news when you were young. Evidence shows that holocausts existed in prehistoric times as well as today.


TV has accelerated the greed within, with most people looking at this hitherto great planet as one big global market to be exploited, savaged to the hilt as soon as possible. I have already discussed in earlier posts other ills of popular TV content, so won't recount them here.Do you have some numbers to support that claim? The very bands in Africa that I used in an earlier post to you suffered such a holocaust at the hands of other primitive tribes thousands of years ago. That is why the clicking languages exist on both coasts in Africa but not in the central region. Bantu speaking tribes wiped them right out of their path thousands of years ago.


I would certainly welcome your views on why you think I am blind to the wave nature of science. If anything, I feel it is you who is besotted and obsessed with the particle/material aspect of matter.The term "material" here appears to mean consumer goods. That is a misuse of the term. The wave nature of a human implies the methodology from my vision. A particle person is focused on one subject and follows it up to a conclusion. A wave person is a jack-of-all trades who is not expertise at one discipline but has a broad focus approach. As both age they can become similar. The wave person can only spread out so far until he or she becomes more focused with time and skills picked up from the broad experience while the particle person penetrates his or her discipline so deeply that it runs into another discipline and broadens outward. Material has no function in this argument. Methodology does.


The paradox is, if you want to enjoy the particle aspect, the one and only way is to recognize the parallel, pervasive wave nature and accord it its due, rather than ignoring, overlooking and tinkering it.You cannot accord its due withour tinkering with it. You cannot know the taste of a pear without changing it with your mouth. You must change something to understand it.

By the way, do you have any comments concerning dark matter?

Mars_Admirer
2007-Jan-17, 11:32 AM
Blueshift:

Hmmm!

I respect your views. But I disagree with your views. I, however, see that neither of us are 100% right perhaps.

To conclude this discussion, I would say that all the knowledge, learning and discoveries that we are pursuing now, splurging billions of dollars, are already there in scriptures.

A disclaimer here would be apt: when I say scriptures, I cite them from a non-religious, non-fanatical plank.

What is pure science got coded and became religion. Ancients may have done it for some good purpose. But religion got misused, subverted later on. Modern science began in right earnest, to demystify and decode religion, and to thus 'discover' pure science.

But by then, vested interests who had much at stake in misused religion, diverted modern science on to the wrong track.

Ever since, it continued on that wrong track, to reach where it is today.

History shows, the original task of uncovering pure science remains. Instead of returning to the basics, modern science remains increasingly entangled with all the outcomes of its efforts on the wrong track.

It is in this perspective that I refer to your earlier remark that nature gives technology to man (tree giving a branch to man to use it to bring down its fruit and eat). That's why they say God (or is it serpent) never gave knowledge to man, or gave it with a caveat. But Adam or someone ate the fruit anyway, etc.

There are fruits and fruits, pears and pears, flowers and flowers. Man knows what to eat, what not to eat. Some fruits, flowers, herbs, plants can kill.

Trouble arises when man ignores the knowledge already given, and goes about trying to change/tinker/taste everything that resembles a fruit. That is greed and mindlessness.

If hunger/energy need is what you need to satisfy, you can eat the fruits meant to be eaten. Merely because some ******** invents concepts or ad jingles like 'variety is the spice of life', you don't go about eating everything that is in sight. It is not essential. It could kill.

Knowledge exists already as to what are your real needs, real purpose, the available means that are adequate, and what you need to do. It is really that simple. But chauvinistic and arrogant and presumptuous as man is, he goes about his wanton 'adventure' of tinkering, inventing luxuries, conjuring inessential wants and labelling them as needs. No wonder, tinkering has produced diseases of body, mind, societal ills, problems, etc.

Such attempts are bound to be pursuits in vain. This whole dark matter research is one such attempt. If you look at the whole space-astronomy racket from this perspective, it become clear that much of the content on this Universe Today website appears fiction-like, pure fantasy, meaningless, a wicked joke on unsuspecting people, senseless indulgence with no clear stated objectives, with no rational cost-benefit accountability. It is a realm that does not lend itself to verifiable facts and figures, ostensibly the mainstay of 'science'.

The Bad Astronomer
2007-Jan-17, 11:46 PM
These astronomy-space 'experts' have an uncanny resemblance to pseudo-spiritualists, religious fanatics, evangelistic conmen! They all thrive on mumbo-jumbo that an ordinary / average lay person cannot understand inside out, much less contest or question. But the community peddling such content knows what's going on. They know exactly what they are up to. They know the game they are indulging in, and at whose expense. From the scientific community's point of view, it is a case of "Us vs Them". 'Them' as in Suckers.

I will very calmly inform you that both the administrators of this website fall in the category of astronomy and space expert, and I pride myself on the fact that I can take very esoteric scientific results and make them palatable to people who may not otherwise understand them.

Therefore I take a very dim view of your equating me with a conman and ascribing nefarious motivations to me. I will again calmly point you to the rules section of this board, which prohibits the use of ad hominems.

Having said that, if you'd like to continue this conversation, feel free to post in the Astronomy section about your ideas. But have a care, and keep a mind on the rules here.

Amber Robot
2007-Jan-17, 11:53 PM
Therefore I take a very dim view of your equating me with a conman and ascribing nefarious motivations to me. I will again calmly point you to the rules section of this board, which prohibits the use of ad hominems.

Furthermore, I know many astronomers, and none of them seems to be the type who wants to have a career "fooling suckers". If they were, there are certainly far more lucrative careers to be in!

Mars_Admirer
2007-Jan-18, 08:52 AM
Phil Plait: I certainly didn't have you and the other administrator, nor your website per se, in mind when I made those remarks about 'experts'. So I'm surprised you rather needlessly took umbrage. By experts, I meant that section of 'scientific community' which revels in meaningless learning and pursuits, and tries to justify the unjustifiable. By 'content peddlers', I meant those researchers and people of their ilk who conduct questionable research and studies, and rush to the mass media to announce esoteric findings, peddling laughable, unverifiable, fiction-like content. I would certainly welcome a more discerning and tighter media / content providers (who are not the same as content peddlers). But I have nothing against media (including your website) that act like a bridge connecting people and content-peddlers.

Amber Robot: My views were not about any particular individuals. Nothing personal here. As I said before, modern science got diverted on to the wrong track in the very beginning. Individuals who are part of the system may do lot of things unwittingly. Some of them may not even understand the system they are part of. But there is certainly a section within the Establishment that actually knows what is going on, and finds it to its liking and convenience. It is this wrong bunch that milk the existing system. Continuing on the wrong track suits them. It is this bunch that needs to be tamed. I can only wish that some of the brilliant brains that are currently entangled on the wrong track see through this game, and bring about changes from within, using their selfsame brains.

Grand_Lunar
2007-Jan-18, 01:05 PM
Shame to see this topic of Dark Matter being mapped went so far off course.
Let's see if I can provide a course correction...




I guess if you look at the graphic, it seems as if there's a beam coming out of Hubble.

So, Hubble is really a prototype phaser? Or maybe a deflector dish? :D

Neat that Hubble helped to map out dark matter. I wonder if when it is overlayed with a map of galaxy distribution how it looks.

Mars_Admirer
2007-Jan-18, 03:24 PM
Dwarf Planet Could Become a Comet

Read this story. Or read any other story. You will probably understand what I mean. Can anyone explain why we should fund research and offer patronage to this astronomy-expert studying this far-off object that might come into Neptune's influence millions of years from now, before allegedly entering inner solar system? Neptune itself is so far away that it is not visible even in powerful telescopes. And this guy is using his talents to study this object far-off from Neptune. Why? What for, may I ask? Who has allowed this study to be carried out? Who pays the bill? How does humankind gain with this study? Does it justify cost-benefit equation, given the limited amount of global resources we have? Why is this chap grandly announcing his findings? Are there any serious immediate implications? Or, is he just making up this perceived significance to make the funding and his existence appear worthwhile? If this is not indulgene, what is? This really beats me, man! All these inessential research activities should be disbanded and thrown into the Pacific Ocean. It would not make a difference to anyone. If anything, precious dollars will be saved that can be used for better purposes.
I don't want to continue debating anymore. I am convinced I don't need to. Let people have a ball. Who cares?

Grand_Lunar
2007-Jan-18, 06:54 PM
I for one would appreciate if you kept the off-topic conversations in that appropiate section of the forum.


If anything, precious dollars will be saved that can be used for better purposes.

Tell you what; look at the budget spent on these projects.
Now, look how much is spent on various govt projects, such as the military. Heck, trillions are spent on social welfare programs!
I doubt a few million that is spent on science will make a difference.

blueshift
2007-Jan-19, 01:44 AM
This is not a religious forum. This is a science forum. If religion wishes for equal time at the pupit of Democritus, then it only stands to reason that the voices of science are going to demand equal time at the pulpit of religion on Sundays. In fact, all other religions and sciences should have that right at church services as well.

The result of this will be the destruction of both science and religion. Church sermons would have to last 18 hours each day, 7 days a week. There would not be enough time to conduct any funerals or weddings or confession. Likewise, the classrooms for science would be destroyed since every religion (the VA recognizes 38 different religious burials presently with more applying) would want their say as well. Not much time to do one equation.

This is why we must separate church and state and the administrators have kept religion out of science forums. To save them both.

Mars_Admirer
2007-Jan-19, 09:34 AM
I for one would appreciate if you kept the off-topic conversations in that appropiate section of the forum. Tell you what; look at the budget spent on these projects. Now, look how much is spent on various govt projects, such as the military. Heck, trillions are spent on social welfare programs! I doubt a few million that is spent on science will make a difference.

I want to keep my word. So won't debate anymore. Without comment: none of my questions has been answered. Parting comments: I don't know why Blueshift has dragged religion into the discussion. Nor can I understand Grand Lunar's grand logic: "Hey, look, those people are perpetrating 100 rapes out there. How does it matter if these poor chaps here commit just a few?? Let them all have fun." YUCK!

Grand_Lunar
2007-Jan-19, 01:20 PM
I want to keep my word. So won't debate anymore. Without comment: none of my questions has been answered. Parting comments: I don't know why Blueshift has dragged religion into the discussion. Nor can I understand Grand Lunar's grand logic: "Hey, look, those people are perpetrating 100 rapes out there. How does it matter if these poor chaps here commit just a few?? Let them all have fun." YUCK!

I hold a distinct difference between govt expendatures and crimes commited; an apples and oranges comparison.
You are WAY off base with me.

blueshift
2007-Jan-20, 12:02 AM
Blueshift:





What is pure science got coded and became religion. This is a contradiction. Science makes no claim to purity, religion does.


Ancients may have done it for some good purpose. But religion got misused, subverted later on. Modern science began in right earnest, to demystify and decode religion, and to thus 'discover' pure science.

But by then, vested interests who had much at stake in misused religion, diverted modern science on to the wrong track.And, you assume, you are on the right track? This has the smack of arrogance and a delusion. A delusionist reorganizes everything to fit his or her delusion.




There are fruits and fruits, pears and pears, flowers and flowers. Man knows what to eat, what not to eat. Some fruits, flowers, herbs, plants can kill.This has nothing to do with the issue I raised concerning understanding something by changing it.


Trouble arises when man ignores the knowledge already given, and goes about trying to change/tinker/taste everything that resembles a fruit. That is greed and mindlessness.No. That is experiment. Proceeding without experiment is greed and mindlessness.


If hunger/energy need is what you need to satisfy, you can eat the fruits meant to be eaten. So what happens when some of us who show an allergy to what is "meant" to be eaten? Who defines what is meant to be eaten?


Merely because some ******** invents concepts or ad jingles like 'variety is the spice of life', you don't go about eating everything that is in sight. It is not essential. It could kill.This has nothing to do with anything.


Knowledge exists already as to what are your real needs, real purpose, the available means that are adequate, and what you need to do. It is really that simple. But chauvinistic and arrogant and presumptuous as man is, he goes about his wanton 'adventure' of tinkering, inventing luxuries, conjuring inessential wants and labelling them as needs. No wonder, tinkering has produced diseases of body, mind, societal ills, problems, etc.So the exporation of dark matter is tied to luxuries, inessential wants,etc? How did your mind escape all of this?


Such attempts are bound to be pursuits in vain. This whole dark matter research is one such attempt. If you look at the whole space-astronomy racket from this perspective, it become clear that much of the content on this Universe Today website appears fiction-like, pure fantasy, meaningless, a wicked joke on unsuspecting people, senseless indulgence with no clear stated objectives, with no rational cost-benefit accountability. It is a realm that does not lend itself to verifiable facts and figures, ostensibly the mainstay of 'science'.You are pointing your finger without realizing that three in your own hand are pointing right back at you. You are all of those things.

Jerry
2007-Jan-20, 06:49 PM
However, there are applications that spacetime physics does apply.
Without special relativity there would be no television. In the
old CRT models the engineers had to take relativity in account
or you wouldn't be able to focus the electron beam properly onto
the screen.

Not true. Focusing was a trial-and-error process which must correct for many things, specifically temperature and the earth's magnetic field. Timing is tied to the speed of a stream of electrons which is << less than the speed of light. Calculating that velocity includes an allowance for relativistic effects, not necessarily a requirement. (Be glad you live in a day when a TV knows how to tune itself. They use feedback, not GR calculations.)

Thirty years ago, the search for the root cause of Dark Matter effects was directed towards finding secondary indicators: Some evidence of hidden bayronic matter or particles with properties predicted by quantum physics. Today, most articles just delineate between what is observe, and what is expected given our knowledge of kinematics. There is a lot of room for improvement here.

Mars_Admirer
2007-Jan-20, 11:28 PM
Blushift: I write this not to rejoin the debate which I promised to leave. I write this because of your vehemence in what you believe in.

While that might sound like having faith in one's conviction, in reality, it reflects delusion, contradiction, etc, which you tried to project on to me.

You should recall that I had already conceded that none of us may be 100% right. If my argument was wrong, I would expect the questions I had raised to be answered directly, and not dodged or ridiculed or sought to be diverted to topics like religion, other wasteful/questionable activities, and irrelevant arcane scientific information not germane to the issues I had raised.

Those are cheap thrils, ordinary tactics, and do not behove what appears to be an intellectual forum.

Reason and faith need to have a symbiotic relationship and synthesised for a balance between the two. And man should stay firmly anchored in that zone of balance. To stay rooted in any one of the extremes, rather than the middle zone, is to invite trouble into one's own life as well as to inflict it on others.

You emphasised "understanding something by changing it". Read it again. That's a clear contradiction, which you sought to project on to me.

Once you change something, it no longer remains that which you seek to understand. So what you understand from such experiments will invariably be different from what you really wanted to understand. And even if you do succeed in understanding what no longer exists, such understanding is bound to prove useless. What will you do with such understanding?

Which means, the experiments won't serve any worthwhile purpose. Worse, such experiments for the sake experiments will likely bring about unforeseen side-effects, misuse, abuse and terrible consequences, whose victims are usually others, not the person(s) doing the experiments / discoveries / inventions.

It all comes back to the most basic question: the need for consensus on the most fundamental issues. Any experiment that is not rooted in the core question is bound to prove an indulgence, far removed from reality.

The truth that the astronomy-science community has to contend with sooner or later is this: "It is time to align yourself with the main goals of the rest of humanity. It is time for course-correction. You had a jolly good ride so far. Now it's time to get back to terra-firma. If you don't do this voluntarily and sensibly, Natural Forces will ensure you do it the hard way."

I should concede though that fiction-like content peddled by the science community makes entertaining reading. I have realised, however, that focusing on fiction, entertainment, etc, would necessarily imply detaching oneself from reality and pursuing the wrong direction.

Ironically, I realised this truth at an observatory on Friday night. Amid clear skies, we focused the telescope on a certain patch of sky where the naked eye could clearly see some ten stars.

Through the telescope, I could discern that the same patch in fact contained some 56 stars! That appeared beautiful and was stunning. Now, a more powerful telescope from a different location may well have revealed many more than 56 stars in that same area.

At the observatory, we were shown a galaxy that apparently was 700 million light years away! Then I was reminded about this debate. I have decided to focus on more meaningful and useful hobbies henceforth. I have also decided to become more focused in life, sticking to what I need to do and well.

Which should mean, it is likely that I would not be visiting this website any more, much less get involved in debates.

As I see it, the Creation is immeasurable and perhaps truly infinite. I don't want to explore it any more. I am part of it. I am a microcosm of it. I'd much rather know myself.

That task, I realise now, is tougher than it sounds, and likely to be more challenging and fascinating than fiction-like astronomy content.

Interacting with you folks has been an educative experience. Thanks for everything. Wish you best. Take care,

blueshift
2007-Jan-21, 08:25 PM
Blushift: I write this not to rejoin the debate which I promised to leave. I write this because of your vehemence in what you believe in.I don't believe in it. The resulting works of science, the flying machines and running autos tell me they can do as they are predicted to do. If I believed them then I would take the words as truth without knowing of the resulting works.


While that might sound like having faith in one's conviction, in reality, it reflects delusion, contradiction, etc, which you tried to project on to me. I didn't project anything upon you. I merely defended my right to free speech.


You should recall that I had already conceded that none of us may be 100% right. Too often this statement has been a mask by an author to make one appear to be objective. You shouldn't bother writing it.


If my argument was wrong, I would expect the questions I had raised to be answered directly, and not dodged or ridiculed or sought to be diverted to topics like religion, other wasteful/questionable activities, and irrelevant arcane scientific information not germane to the issues I had raised.You do not ask any questions that can be answered directly. This is why I asked for some calculation and experiment. You seem offended by tinkering so you seem offended by experiment and calculation. All creatures count and humans learn to do so in the first 5 months of life. Insects do it right away. All cells tinker with each other. There is cross talk within the human brain from one area to the next since the brain keeps evolving on its own. You have only left us with words like "pure science" and purity suggests absolutes which suggests a religious view. Further, you have ducked out on a discussion of dark matter by calling it a waste of money. You haven't explained why the mining of metal is a waste of money while you use it all the time.


Those are cheap thrils, ordinary tactics, and do not behove what appears to be an intellectual forum.So something inexpensive and ordinary is something you view to lack intellect?


Reason and faith need to have a symbiotic relationship and synthesised for a balance between the two. And man should stay firmly anchored in that zone of balance. To stay rooted in any one of the extremes, rather than the middle zone, is to invite trouble into one's own life as well as to inflict it on others.How do you plan on synthesizing something without tinkering with it? What do you do when your auto breaks down? Isn't it in some extreme condition?


You emphasised "understanding something by changing it". Read it again. That's a clear contradiction, which you sought to project on to me.No because you just repeated what I preached. You changed the face of this webpage with your comments in order to show some understanding. I have changed it in return.


Once you change something, it no longer remains that which you seek to understand.That is not so in the macrocosmic world. It is so in the subatomic world. When my van broke down in the road, I changed many things within it to understand why it would not run. 3 areas of change came to mind for testing...spark, compression or fuel. I changed the position of one spark plug by removing it and, after holding it near to a known ground and turning the ignition key to crank the engine, a spark leaped between the small gap. By changing the position of my hand and holding my finger over the empty hole over the cylinder from where I took out the spark plug, I cranked again and felt suction..That left fuel to be the possible cause. By changing the carburetor input gas line through disconnection and placing a glass jar over the open fuel line I cranked the engine again and found no fuel delivery. So I jumped on my bicycle and went to the auto parts store and bought a new fuel pump and replaced the old one..More change...Would you like to guess that it ran after that?


So what you understand from such experiments will invariably be different from what you really wanted to understand. And even if you do succeed in understanding what no longer exists, such understanding is bound to prove useless. What will you do with such understanding?What I did with that undertanding of my van was to show how a patient, methodical process of change could prevent us from being stranded in the road. My sons were quite greatful along with many people along my journeys whom I stopped to help. You would have done what instead?


Which means, the experiments won't serve any worthwhile purpose. Worse, such experiments for the sake experiments will likely bring about unforeseen side-effects, misuse, abuse and terrible consequences, whose victims are usually others, not the person(s) doing the experiments / discoveries / inventions.Try to plug that reasoning into the above situation.


It all comes back to the most basic question: the need for consensus on the most fundamental issues. Any experiment that is not rooted in the core question is bound to prove an indulgence, far removed from reality.A consensus is 100% agreement as to what is fundamental. How do you plan on getting 6 billion to all agree on that when you are having enough trouble with me?


The truth that the astronomy-science community has to contend with sooner or later is this: "It is time to align yourself with the main goals of the rest of humanity. It is time for course-correction. You had a jolly good ride so far. Astronomers are a part of the "rest of humanity". Does the "rest of humanity" consist of people who think like you?

Just what do you call a jolly good ride? Astronomers do not spend the majority of their time in 75 degree temperatures. Many of them must go to places like Antartica where it is easiest to find meteorites in the snow. They cannot be housed in any buildings and sleep in tents that only keep the wind off of them. They sleep 3 to a tent and have to partially undress in order to let their body heat bring the temperature to a less uncomfortable state. They have to take all their body waste off of Antartica so they create an out door portapotty and have to drop their shorts right out in the cold. Then, after a week that includes no bathing, they load up all the waste on the plane and bring it back. Biochemists then poke through it to see what effects their bodies went through besides shivering...Sounds like fun, doesn't it?


Now it's time to get back to terra-firma. If you don't do this voluntarily and sensibly, Natural Forces will ensure you do it the hard way."

I should concede though that fiction-like content peddled by the science community makes entertaining reading. I have realised, however, that focusing on fiction, entertainment, etc, would necessarily imply detaching oneself from reality and pursuing the wrong direction.

Ironically, I realised this truth at an observatory on Friday night. Amid clear skies, we focused the telescope on a certain patch of sky where the naked eye could clearly see some ten stars.

Through the telescope, I could discern that the same patch in fact contained some 56 stars! That appeared beautiful and was stunning. Now, a more powerful telescope from a different location may well have revealed many more than 56 stars in that same area.

At the observatory, we were shown a galaxy that apparently was 700 million light years away! Then I was reminded about this debate. I have decided to focus on more meaningful and useful hobbies henceforth. I have also decided to become more focused in life, sticking to what I need to do and well.This sounds like you felt quite small compared to all those stars. So does this mean that it made you feel that your "self" is not the big thing you think it is? Didn't your reaction make you cherish your life more? Further, what kind of hobby exists that has no tinkering? Even reading a book requires that you turn pages and look up words in dictionaries. Those are changes in positions of pages and your hands and your eyes that must change postiions in order for you to read.


Which should mean, it is likely that I would not be visiting this website any more, much less get involved in debates.

As I see it, the Creation is immeasurable and perhaps truly infinite.Why did you capitalize 'creation' ?


I don't want to explore it any more. I am part of it. I am a microcosm of it. I'd much rather know myself.So you wish to give up and feel that you can ignore what you are a microcosm of. After you do that you are going to get to know your "self"? Where is this wall between you and the universe? You cannot live without oxygen so if something removes all of that your self will not exist. Are you aware that what makes up your body and brain was made in a star that died long ago? This sounds like ingratitude.




That task, I realise now, is tougher than it sounds, and likely to be more challenging and fascinating than fiction-like astronomy content.You're not a parent, are you? Now if you are a parent I would venture to say they are quite young and in the future they are going to make you see how fictitious your self really is.


Interacting with you folks has been an educative experience. Thanks for everything. Wish you best. Take care,Bye

Mars_Admirer
2007-Jan-22, 08:19 AM
Blueshift: Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Bye.

John Mendenhall
2007-Jan-23, 03:42 PM
Shame to see this topic of Dark Matter being mapped went so far off course.
Let's see if I can provide a course correction...

Neat that Hubble helped to map out dark matter. I wonder if when it is overlain with a map of galaxy distribution how it looks.

Try here:

http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2007/01/images/f/formats/pdf.pdf

As the moderator et al. are painfully aware, I take a dim view of dark matter (pun intended). However, in this case, the interesting thing about the comparison between visible matter and alleged dark matter (see link above) in these images is that they are NOT congruent. This is the best piece of evidence that I have seen yet for dark matter. Why? Because if the dark matter is all at the same locations as the visible matter, then my feeling is that were not observing dark matter, but have made a mistake somewhere. But if there are mass concentrations where we see NO visible matter, then Ill sit up and pay attention.