PDA

View Full Version : Whitehead's Relativity, alternative to Einstein or not?



Grey
2003-Aug-23, 04:14 PM
In several other threads we've touched on Whitehead's Theory of Relativity. Whitehead originally published this in 1922 as an alternative to general relativity; dgruss23 was kind enough to find this link (http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~sn2y-tnk/tanaka_4_0.htm) which gives a nice overview of the differences between Whitehead's theory and Einstein's. The brief version is that Whitehead's theory incorporates something equivalent to Einstein's theory of special relativity, but rejects the principle of equivalence. So spacetime has a flat metric, and gravity is treated as a field, like other physical fields. Gravity and intertia are separate phenomena.

The theory predicted that there should be effects noted in the tidal record of Earth proportional to M/r, and when Clifford Will demonstrated that there was no evidence of this, Whitehead's ideas were dismissed. However, kilopi rightly points out (http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/physicst.htm) that this study assumed that the center of mass of the galactic center should provide the largest contribution to an effect that goes like M/r, and there are other gravitational sources, like the Virgo supercluster and the Great Attractor that would have a comparable or larger contribution. In fact, we'd need to know a lot more about the distribution of matter in the universe to use this to dismiss Whitehead's theory (or, if we were convinced in some other manner that Whitehead was right, we might use careful measurements of this type to find out about th edistribution of matter in the universe).

Also, it seems (http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~sn2y-tnk/tanaka_4_5.htm) that Whitehead's theory does not adequately explain gravitational redshift. In order to agree with experiment, we have to either give up Whitehead's basic axiom of a flat spacetime metric and allow curved space, or else add in an ad hoc hypothesis about the physical influence of gravity on atomic clocks. Allowing gravitational influences to affect the shape of spacetime seems to take us right back to an Einsteinian viewpoint, while the need for an ad hoc hypothesis is a reason to at least begin to question a theory.

So, I've talked long enough here. What are your thoughts? Is there a flaw in kilopi's argument that I can't see? Is there an elegant solution to the problem of gravitational redshift? Is Whitehead's theory of relativity rightly consigned to history as an unseccessful competitor to Einstein's, or are there reasons to still consider it a possibility?

kilopi
2003-Aug-23, 05:23 PM
Allowing gravitational influences to affect the shape of spacetime seems to take us right back to an Einsteinian viewpoint, while the need for an ad hoc hypothesis is a reason to at least begin to question a theory.

Even Will's analysis of the theory used a modified form of it. In other words, we are dealing with what that link calls "Whiteheadian" theory, rather than a specific theory. The most famous ad hoc hypothesis is the cosmological constant added by Einstein to his general relativity. It's been rejected and re-embraced since. I disagree that it is a reason to question the theory.

Since when have we needed a reason? :)


So, I've talked long enough here. What are your thoughts? Is there a flaw in kilopi's argument that I can't see?
One thing that I did not stress in my comments was that Will apparently did not fully understand the tidal record. He was looking for an anomalous sidereal tide and took the word of other experts that such did not exist--but as near as I can tell, it does!

Whether or not there is something to it, is something I haven't worked out yet.

Is there an elegant solution to the problem of gravitational redshift? Is Whitehead's theory of relativity rightly consigned to history as an unseccessful competitor to Einstein's, or are there reasons to still consider it a possibility?
I talked with Will about that, and he admitted that my analysis was correct--but he said he didn't think it was enough to resurrect Whitehead's theory. Still, not much harm in considering it, right?

2003-Aug-23, 05:53 PM
Dark Red? so while i was "NOT" able to do dark red.. ( I was using a UNIX (debian connection?/? /
i cam across a math program called perldl
Pi Man? does that reall work ?

Pi Man
2003-Aug-23, 06:39 PM
Dark Red? so while i was "NOT" able to do dark red.. ( I was using a UNIX (debian connection?/? /
i cam across a math program called perldl
Pi Man? does that reall work ?

Yeah. I see the words "Dark Red?" in dark red.

Now, what's this about the math program called perldl? Is it only for UNIX?

Grey
2003-Aug-23, 11:37 PM
Since when have we needed a reason? :)
True. Still, the more extra things we need to toss in to make a theory agree with the data, the less confidence we're likely to have in the theory. In the case of the gravitational redshift, actually, it seems that we need to figure out just what our ad hoc hypothesis should be. Can we add in gravitational warping of time without just ending up with Einstein's version of relativity? Does someone have an idea of a way that atomic clocks could be affected by gravity that would acount for the observed redshift without necessitating change in the rate of time flow due to gravity? It seems that without a solution to this problem, Whitehead's theory is in disagreement with the observations, entirely apart from the tidal record issues. Since Whitehead's theory doesn't subscribe to the equivalence principle, is there another reason why gravitational and inertial mass seem to be the same thing, or is that just a coincidence?

DoctorDick
2003-Aug-24, 01:24 AM
Do you guys really want to discuss alternatives to Einstein's theory? [-( If that is really the case, check out

http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/flaw/Fatalfla.htm

Start with that and if you are interested, I will show you some more stuff!

Celestial Mechanic
2003-Aug-24, 04:06 AM
Is there a page out there that gives a Hilbert-Palatini type form of the Lagrangian density of Whitehead's Theory for use as a starting point? I've only seen versions for discrete particle world-lines.

The Hilbert-Palatini expression for the Lagrangian density is L_matter + R/(16*pi*G), where L_matter is the Lagrangian density of matter (well, actually, everything but gravity), R is the Ricci scalar, and G is our old friend, the Newtonian gravitational constant.

kilopi
2003-Aug-24, 12:26 PM
Start with that and if you are interested, I will show you some more stuff!
From the abstract of your article:

Einstein believed clocks measured time; a perception he himself proved was false; nevertheless, that perception so pervaded his view that he proposed a geometry where one of the coordinates was time. He failed to perceive the dire consequences of the fact that what is actually measured by clocks is proper time: i.e., path length in his geometry. Not even a beginning student would make the error of attempting data display in a geometry where one of his fundamental measurements was to become path length in that geometry; to do so creates a problem in data analysis any rational person would avoid.
Makes ya kinda feel sorry for the old poot, don't it? :)

DoctorDick
2003-Aug-24, 01:01 PM
=D> Very witty! You kind of took that out of context didn't you? Why don't you make it clear who's definition of time you are using? :lol: Or maybe the problem is just over your head :wink:.

Grey
2003-Aug-24, 01:46 PM
Do you guys really want to discuss alternatives to Einstein's theory?
I hope this doesn't come across as rude. :) I had intended this thread to be specifically a discussion of whether or not a Whiteheadian theory of relativity might be valid (I don't think it is, by the way, given the gravitational redshift issue, but there may be one or more solutions to that problem). I wouldn't mind at all if you wanted to discuss the merits or flaws of Whitehead's ideas based on your own thoughts.

This is the "against the mainstream" forum, though, so discussing your ideas is certainly appropriate for the forum in general, even if not quite on topic for the thread. If you specifically want to discuss your own alternative to Einstein's relativity, I'd encourage you to start a separate thread. I'd plan to participate in such a thread, but I really would like to find out what people think about Whitehead's ideas, so I'd hope that this thread doesn't get taken too far off topic. Thanks! :)

kilopi
2003-Aug-24, 02:09 PM
=D> Very witty! You kind of took that out of context didn't you? Why don't you make it clear who's definition of time you are using? :lol: Or maybe the problem is just over your head
Out of context? Those were the first three sentences of your abstract. There's only five more, and they don't change the meaning of those first three, as near as I can tell:


Analyzing data in Einsteinís geometry amounts to exactly that problem! Einsteinís error makes general relativisticly correct data analysis verge on impossibility. Only circumstances involving special relativity are reasonable to analyze as the conversion between time and proper time is easy. The fact that Einsteinís geometry was not the only Lorentz consistent geometry eluded discovery for 75 years only because we are so strongly driven by convention to think of clocks as measuring time. This paper discusses a wholly new way of resolving the implications of the Lorentz metric.

DoctorDick
2003-Aug-24, 04:00 PM
:oops: Sorry about that Kilopi! I had forgotten that I had attached an abstract to that paper. You have certainly pointed out a reason people don't read the paper :cry: and I thank you for that. Sometimes it can be quite difficult to see things from another's perspective. I meant no insult of Einstein at all. He did some excellent stuff but I still think he made an error. If you check historical breakthroughs, they often turn out to be based on very trivial oversights.

And, Grey, I also apologize to you. I did not intend to usurp your thread. I will start a new thread and see what happens. :-?

AgoraBasta
2003-Aug-24, 04:57 PM
I will start a new thread and see what happens. :-? Please do so, and I'll tell you what exactly you've got wrong and what can be done to correct and somewhat develop your ideas.

AgoraBasta
2003-Aug-24, 07:01 PM
I talked with Will about that, and he admitted that my analysis was correct--but he said he didn't think it was enough to resurrect Whitehead's theory. AFAIK, the main publically acknowledged reason to suppress alternatives is that GR is 'the simplest metric theory' that seems to work.
But the most important 'dirty' reason is quite different - there's a bunch of well-entrenched relativists who wish to believe in the most 'religious' way in the physicality of geometry. (Maybe the basic simplicity of the idea makes them feel closer to god...) And they also like to talk of things like 'Einsteinian paradigm' and build a full-blown philosophy upon such nonsense.

In the meantime, there are some successfull theories employing preferred frame in a way similar to Whitehead's. Those are, e.g., 'GR with harmonic condition' and a quite few variants of RTG. Here's some info on those (http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/GET/index.html).

Grey
2003-Aug-24, 08:52 PM
And, Grey, I also apologize to you. I did not intend to usurp your thread. I will start a new thread and see what happens. :-?
No trouble at all! In fact, most threads eventually move themselves off into different directions after a little while, so it's not really a problem if they do, I was just hoping to find out whether there are solutions to some of the problems in Whitehead's model before we head off on a tangent. :D

AgoraBasta
2003-Aug-25, 07:46 PM
Does someone have an idea of a way that atomic clocks could be affected by gravity that would acount for the observed redshift without necessitating change in the rate of time flow due to gravity? It seems that without a solution to this problem, Whitehead's theory is in disagreement with the observations, entirely apart from the tidal record issues. That's not a problem at least since Synge's (1951) reformulation of Whitehead's theory. That produced a bi-metric theory where causal gravity follows the immutable background metric and all other 'matter fields' couple through the resultant metric comprising gravitational field. Synge's reformulation was an exact isomorphy mathematically, yet Whitehead's philosophical motivation was totally neglected in it.

I've never seen a Lagrangian formulated for the Whitehead's theory, and I'm not sure it can be done at all, but from some general considerations I'd presume it could include the backgroung metric as some extra field term.

kilopi
2003-Aug-25, 07:59 PM
Synge's reformulation is the one Will worked with, IIRC, and it's the one discussed in MTW.

AgoraBasta
2003-Aug-25, 08:10 PM
Synge's reformulation is the one Will worked with, IIRC, and it's the one discussed in MTW.Sure. And it's easier to perceive to those used to standard GR terminology. But it's still an exact isomorphism to the original.

kilopi
2003-Aug-25, 08:12 PM
Why didn't Tanaka, at Grey's link? Or am I missing something?

AgoraBasta
2003-Aug-25, 08:22 PM
Why didn't Tanaka, at Grey's link? Or am I missing something?Seems like Tanaka had certain reservations against disclosing all info available... You know, those scientists...

Celestial Mechanic
2003-Aug-26, 04:12 AM
Welcome back, AgoraBasta!

AgoraBasta
2003-Aug-26, 02:11 PM
Welcome back, AgoraBasta!Thanks! But I never really disappeared, just too few topics got me interested enough to comment. Hope that changes back to normal :P

By the way, any ideas re Lagrangian for Whitehead's theory?

nokton
2003-Aug-26, 05:40 PM
To Grey,Kilopi,and other learned contributers here.Have followed
your recent posts with much interest,much of it is beyond my learning,
but I have a grasp of what the basis of your posts are about.One thing
caught my attention,the post questioning the value of Alberts clock,
regarding the measurement of time.Correct me if I am wrong,please,
but a clock is an instrument that measures the difference between one
event and another as time(a dimension),the difference as I understand it
depends on the position of the observer.The difference between time here
and at the event horizon of a black hole is distorted by gravity,as we here
see it,but to the observer at the event horizon the clock is still recording
the distance there,between one event and another,which to the observer
there,appears normal.

kilopi
2003-Aug-28, 04:54 PM
I just want to make a note of a couple articles that AgoraBasta furnished last December (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=48292#48292). The first is a critical one produced by Jonathan Bain in the Dept. of Humanities and Social Science at Polytecnic in Brooklyn, and the second (http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~lward/Whitehead/Whitehead_1920/White1_pref.html) was an article by Whitehead, The Concept of Nature. Both interesting reading.

honestmonkey
2003-Aug-28, 06:00 PM
I think that a lot of this thread is probably over my head (hey, that rhymes!), but I have one question that I haven't seen a complete answer on (if such is available). Assume that Whitehead is correct, then what does that gain us? What do we then know that we didn't before? What does it predict that has been shown to be so?

I see some people here seem to have a problem with a prevailing theory just because it is the prevailing theory. I don't think that all (or even most) scientists have any vested interest in keeping around a theory that doesn't work.

Agora, Kilopi and others, can you show that these alternate theories that "nobody else will try" work better than what we have now? That is, employ Occam's razor, please. Don't go off on a "poor me, nobody likes me because my name isn't Einstein" tangent. Make a prediction that GR/SR doesn't, then show it to be so. If you can't do that, then what good is your theory?

AgoraBasta
2003-Aug-28, 06:30 PM
Agora, Kilopi and others, can you show that these alternate theories that "nobody else will try" work better than what we have now? That is, employ Occam's razor, please. Could I propose that you try that sword on your own chain of reasoning?
The reasons to consider the Whitehead's theory as an attractive alternative are all clearly stated in the (quite serious) papers linked above in the thread. Why wouldn't you read those first to commenting? I can save you some time and simply point out that the Whitehead's theory is a linear one, and as such has far greater practical predictive power than the badly non-linear GR. Furthermore, each time you see GR'ish calculations employing a Lienard-Wiechert type potentials, you see an example of practical use of exactly the Whitehead's theory and not the GR per se.

kilopi
2003-Aug-28, 06:31 PM
I see some people here seem to have a problem with a prevailing theory just because it is the prevailing theory.
That's not true. I don't see anybody like that.

Agora, Kilopi and others, can you show that these alternate theories that "nobody else will try" work better than what we have now? That is, employ Occam's razor, please.
Occam's razor is a non-scientific approach.


Don't go off on a "poor me, nobody likes me because my name isn't Einstein" tangent.
You just did, and as near as I can tell, you're the only one who has, in this thread.

Make a prediction that GR/SR doesn't, then show it to be so. If you can't do that, then what good is your theory?
It's not my theory. As has been said, it's been around for eighty years--almost as long as Einstein's own theory. There have been a lot of newer theories crop up, and they have been discussed and tested, but not everybody hears about them--usually because they've failed the tests, or they haven't produced results that are testable. Whitehead's theory is capable of producing results that are in accord with experiment, except in one particular case and that is the case that I am disputing. Or, at least, discussing. So, it does disagree with Einstein's theory, but it's not clear that it has been shown to be wrong.

Whitehead produced an important body of philosophical work, including the mathematical masterpiece that he wrote with his student, Bertrand Russell. He was not a crackpot, by any means.

nokton
2003-Aug-28, 07:16 PM
Honestmonkey speakes with insight.Theories are nothing without
concept.Theorise as much as you want,quote other 'theories',
Back door is understanding,and understanding is a grasp of the
concept of the representation described by the theory.
I think Honestmonkey has a very important point here

AgoraBasta
2003-Aug-28, 10:52 PM
Honestmonkey speakes with insight.Theories are nothing without
concept.Theorise as much as you want,quote other 'theories',
Back door is understanding,and understanding is a grasp of the
concept of the representation described by the theory.
I think Honestmonkey has a very important point hereCould you please substantiate your notion in a more elaborate way? 8)

nokton
2003-Aug-29, 04:09 PM
AgoraBasta asked for me to support my 'notion'
The ancient Greek thinkers grasped concepts without the math,
their thoughts still are the foundation of present science.Aristotle realised,
and grasped the concept of atoms,without the math to prove it.
That knowledge Agora supports my contention that understanding
and concept come first,theory comes second.Thankyou for your post.

kilopi
2003-Aug-29, 07:58 PM
I think what AgoraBasta was asking was, how is that concerned with honestmonkey's post (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=134315#134315)?

Still, sometimes, the theory comes first--Dirac's equation was the theory that predicted the existence of antimatter, which was not confirmed for a long time.

nokton
2003-Aug-29, 08:35 PM
Kilopi,that is my point,Socrates on his deathbed,described his 'law of opposites'.He was describing a concept he held when asked about death.
He told his disciples around him,everything has an opposite.Diracs
equation may prove the existence of antimatter,but Socrates grasped
the concept centuries ago

AgoraBasta
2003-Aug-29, 09:29 PM
Grapes,

I think enough is enough. Let 'nokton' dwell his/her middle of the nevermore, and let's concenrate on whatever hard evidence/experience we ever get from those 'in the know', ourselves included.

OK?

Tensor
2003-Aug-30, 05:57 AM
.... The brief version is that Whitehead's theory incorporates something equivalent to Einstein's theory of special relativity, but rejects the principle of equivalence. So spacetime has a flat metric, and gravity is treated as a field, like other physical fields. Gravity and intertia are separate phenomena.
If, in Whitehead's theory, gravity is treated as a field, then I would assume that the graviton would be the force carrier, right?


...Whitehead's theory does not adequately explain gravitational redshift. In order to agree with experiment, we have to either give up Whitehead's basic axiom of a flat spacetime metric and allow curved space, or else add in an ad hoc hypothesis about the physical influence of gravity on atomic clocks. Allowing gravitational influences to affect the shape of spacetime seems to take us right back to an Einsteinian viewpoint, while the need for an ad hoc hypothesis is a reason to at least begin to question a theory.
Since Whitehead's theory requires a flat space-time metric, doesn't this rule out a GR type of gravitational wave? If so, wouldn't Taylor and Hulse's measurements of inspiraling neutron stars be observational evidence against the theory (since it provides indirect evidence of gravitational waves)? Or, does Whitehead's theory have a mechanism that can explain the loss of rotational energy in the binary?




edited to fix a stupid &%%# spelling mistake.

nokton
2003-Aug-30, 05:33 PM
AgoraBasta,who gave you permission to say enough is enough.
Arrogence is failure to accept any opinion that challenges your own.
Bad science,I value this site,and have deference and respect for it's
creator,therefore will not tell you here,my thoughts.Tell me I am wrong,
say why,but never trash what I try to contribute here,and make like you
are someone special,you are not

TriangleMan
2003-Aug-30, 05:35 PM
I value this site,and have deference and respect for it's
creator,therefore will not tell you here,my thoughts.

Good idea, since posting personal attacks is what got AgoraBasta banned. :wink:

kilopi
2003-Aug-31, 05:37 PM
Good idea, since posting personal attacks is what got AgoraBasta banned.
I'll miss 'em, hope he stays in touch. I've still got a few articles that I'm perusing, and I may need some questions answered. :)

dgruss23
2003-Aug-31, 06:20 PM
Good idea, since posting personal attacks is what got AgoraBasta banned.
I'll miss 'em, hope he stays in touch. I've still got a few articles that I'm perusing, and I may need some questions answered. :)

Can he do that? He didn't include an e-mail address in his profile and the BA usually bans posters that sign on with a new name after being banned - although I think Prince is that only one that regularly tries that.

kilopi
2003-Aug-31, 06:29 PM
Can he do that? He didn't include an e-mail address in his profile and the BA usually bans posters that sign on with a new name after being banned - although I think Prince is that only one that regularly tries that.
It would be private email, of course. I've furnished plenty of links to my personal webpage, and there's a link to my email address, so it wouldn't be difficult.

Grey
2003-Sep-01, 05:34 PM
Why didn't Tanaka, at Grey's link? Or am I missing something?
He did actually make mention of this. One issue is that, according to Tanaka, this requires relinquishing the assumption that the curvature of space-time is independent of matter. How does this really differ from an Einsteinian view of things then? Perhaps there are differences, if I were to study Synge's modifications in greater detail.


This type of modification, as Synge and others showed, makes it possible to deduce the uniform redshift from Whitehead's equations. We can get the same predicted value of redshift as that of Einstein's equations.

But we must bear in mind that the above remedy requires us to reformulate one of the fundamental tenets in Whitehead's theory, i.e., that space-time should have the uniform structure independent of matter. Accepting the influence of gravitation on metrical properties of space-time, we are obliged to ask the following question. To what extent may we admit the effects of matter on space-time and at the same time remain faithful to Whitehead's philosophy of nature?

Grey
2003-Sep-01, 05:35 PM
It would be private email, of course. I've furnished plenty of links to my personal webpage, and there's a link to my email address, so it wouldn't be difficult.
I'm posting twice in succession, since this post is unrelated to the previous one. I'm sorry AgoraBasta is gone as well. He had interesting ideas. Kilopi, if you want to track him down rather than hoping he'll contact you, AgoraBasta turns out to be a sufficiently unique name. Doing a quick Google search lists a number of other bulletin boards where someone by that same name has posted, also from Russia; for some of those, there's an e-mail address in his personal information, and by the post style it seems likely that it's the same person.

kilopi
2003-Sep-01, 06:07 PM
Accepting the influence of gravitation on metrical properties of space-time, we are obliged to ask the following question. To what extent may we admit the effects of matter on space-time and at the same time remain faithful to Whitehead's philosophy of nature?
I guess I'm not too concerned with remaining faithful to the original philosophy. Einstein certainly wasn't, in his progress to the final formulation of his theory.

And thanks for the info about AgoraBasta's address. A little bird slipped in the other night as well. :)

nokton
2003-Sep-01, 07:41 PM
Gravity is not about matter,but about the density of space.
Am sick and tired of the exponents of 'dark matter'.Nothing
yet comes close to explaining what it is,or providing a concept
of understanding.Yet the idea,without a concept to grasp,
concerns the minds of those who would otherwise be better employed

Grey
2003-Sep-01, 08:43 PM
I guess I'm not too concerned with remaining faithful to the original philosophy. Einstein certainly wasn't, in his progress to the final formulation of his theory.
Of course it's not particularly a problem to modify the theory (though perhaps it's a misnomer to still call it Whitehead's). What I don't understand, admittedly because I'm not that familiar with Synge's modifications, is how the resulting theory differs from Einstein's. If there's no longer a flat spacetime metric, but rather one that's curved in response to the presence of matter, how does it differ? Is it just in the way it's calculated? It apparently gives the same results as Einstein's relativity for gravitational redshifts; are there other cases where it gives differing predictions?


Gravity is not about matter,but about the density of space. Am sick and tired of the exponents of 'dark matter'. Nothing
yet comes close to explaining what it is,or providing a concept of understanding.Yet the idea,without a concept to grasp, concerns the minds of those who would otherwise be better employed
I disagree here. I think it's clear that gravity involves matter, since empty space doesn't attract things gravitationally. The reason the dark matter is called that is precisely because the researchers don't know what it is. There's clear evidence from numerous fronts that either some of our basic models of the universe are quite wrong, or there's a lot of matter that we can't see. So it makes perfect sense to try to see if we can find out what it is and observe it directly, or if not, see if we can find evidence to support theories that don't require it.

kilopi
2003-Sep-01, 08:55 PM
It apparently gives the same results as Einstein's relativity for gravitational redshifts; are there other cases where it gives differing predictions?
Will attempted to classify the various types of alternative theories, using his system, but had to devise a separate parameter for "Whiteheadean" theory. He derived a tidal term that does not show up in the Einstein relativity.

nokton
2003-Sep-02, 06:06 PM
Hi Grey,gravity involves matter,yes,but time also.You make the point
that some of our models (the way of current thinking),may be wrong.
Would agree you are right in your evaluation.Look forward to your
ideas,within the spirit of understanding.

nokton
2003-Sep-03, 07:11 PM
The wind and sea are but terms that betray a troubled mind,
I will evaluate my dream of a concept of this entity,I will understand.
I will describe it

nokton
2003-Sep-13, 06:13 PM
Grey is misleading about this,my contention is that space
varies in 'thickness',depending on the mass around it.
I have tried to describe this as a colour with different densities.
No one has ever,after 30 years,come up with a positive explanation
of 'dark matter',Grey.Theory,yes,but observation,no.Description no.
I read and value Greys contribution to this site,but would opine that
concept has more value than teaching,or rote learning.
With the deepest respect I mean no offence

dgruss23
2003-Sep-13, 08:18 PM
Gravity is not about matter,but about the density of space.
Am sick and tired of the exponents of 'dark matter'.Nothing
yet comes close to explaining what it is,or providing a concept
of understanding.Yet the idea,without a concept to grasp,
concerns the minds of those who would otherwise be better employed

nokton, there is this thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=5133&start=0) which points to tentative evidence that the dark matter could be normal baryonic matter as opposed to the non-baryonic dark matter menu.


nokton wrote: Grey is misleading about this,

What is misleading about what Grey wrote? He said:


Grey wrote: The reason the dark matter is called that is precisely because the researchers don't know what it is. There's clear evidence from numerous fronts that either some of our basic models of the universe are quite wrong, or there's a lot of matter that we can't see.

In fact this is a very objective assessment. He is pointing out that if the dark matter does not exist, then some of the current models are very wrong. You can't get any more honest than that.



nokton: my contention is that space
varies in 'thickness',depending on the mass around it.
I have tried to describe this as a colour with different densities.

Could you share more specifics? Is space thicker near mass or thinner near mass? How does this explain the motions? Are we talking about a "pushing" effect from thicker to thinner?


nokton: No one has ever,after 30 years,come up with a positive explanation
of 'dark matter',Grey.Theory,yes,but observation,no. That's not entirely true since baryonic dark matter has been observed as is pointed out in the thread I've linked to above.

Nonbaryonic dark matter has not been observed at this time. It is inferred, but we've also recently discussed new results for ellipticals which indicate many seem to lack the dark matter halos.



I read and value Greys contribution to this site,but would opine that
concept has more value than teaching,or rote learning.
With the deepest respect I mean no offence

Aren't concepts also taught?

Kebsis
2003-Sep-14, 06:43 AM
What is it that is wrong with General Relativity? Keep it as layman as possible, please. :o :oops:

nokton
2003-Sep-14, 03:54 PM
degruss 23 put several points to me in his last post.
Would respond by saying I would never question Greys honesty,
or integrity.Just pointing out that the search for dark matter,WIMPS
and MACHOS included,have come up with nothing.The search in that
direction has been fruitless,so it's time to think differently.
No one in this forum has mentioned MOND as an alternative.
My contention,degruss,about the thickness of space relative to the
mass it is associated comes from much thought in trying to
conceive a gravity well in three dimensions.One thought,friend,
time is involved here too.If time is distorted by gravity,and I know it is,
perhaps that would explain something about ellipticals,feel you will
throw up your arms here degruss,but please consider that time at the
centre of a galaxy may be different from time at the arms of the galaxy,
due to the mass at the centre slowing time down

dgruss23
2003-Sep-14, 05:02 PM
degruss 23 put several points to me in his last post.
Would respond by saying I would never question Greys honesty,
or integrity.

That's good to hear! Usually when someone says misleading that implies an intentional act to deceive.


Just pointing out that the search for dark matter,WIMPS
and MACHOS included,have come up with nothing.The search in that
direction has been fruitless,so it's time to think differently.

I don't disagree. I've pointed to the baryonic dark matter alternative on that baryonic dark matter thread and pointed out that dark matter in general seems to be missing in many elliptical galaxies (elliptical galaxies thread).


No one in this forum has mentioned MOND as an alternative.

I've taken a careful look at MOND and mentioned it on other threads. But MOND has been contradicted. Sanders (MOND advocate) pointed out in a 1996 paper that it would only take a single violation to invalidate MOND. NGC 2841 provides that contradiction. The cepheid distances to NGC 2841 is 14 Mpc while the MOND preferred distance is 23-24 Mpc.

Unfortunately MOND advocates have been given false hope in the Tully-Fisher distance to NGC 2841 which is normally closer to the MOND distance than the cepheid distance. But when a morphological effect is accounted for the correct Tully-Fisher distance to NGC 2841 is actually pretty close to the cepheid distance.


My contention,degruss,about the thickness of space relative to the mass it is associated comes from much thought in trying to
conceive a gravity well in three dimensions.One thought,friend,
time is involved here too.If time is distorted by gravity,and I know it is,
perhaps that would explain something about ellipticals,feel you will
throw up your arms here degruss,but please consider that time at the
centre of a galaxy may be different from time at the arms of the galaxy,
due to the mass at the centre slowing time down

Ellipticals have been shown to have small gravitational redshifts on the order of 30-40 km s-1 which I believe is essentially what you are talking about. Could you clarify how you see that as a substitute for dark matter. Also keep in mind that the new observations are indicating that many ellipticals have no dark matter.

Grey
2003-Sep-15, 11:16 PM
What is it that is wrong with General Relativity? Keep it as layman as possible, please. :o :oops:
There's not necessarily anything wrong with general relativity. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss alternatives, of which Whitehead's is one. Whitehead's original model had some problems with gravitational redshifts, which were apparently solved by Synge's reformulation, which doesn't require spacetime to have a flat metric. I'm still not sure exactly how this differs from Einstein's model, but I assume it's in the exact nature of the curvature, and I'll admit that the reason I still don't completely understand the difference is because I haven't had the time to follow up on all the leads that have been provided in this thread.

nokton
2003-Sep-16, 06:24 PM
No degruss am not into questioning the current theories of dark
matter,just asking for a different way of looking at the prob.
After much thought,Albert in his spacetime equations,touched
upon time.Dirac made much of this,and I think he was right in a way.
My point degruss,is that time passes faster in a low gravity field,
and that may explain the difference between spiral and elliptical
galaxies.Point is degruss,if time differs determined by gravity,
how do we measure a stars distance?

dgruss23
2003-Sep-16, 10:24 PM
No degruss am not into questioning the current theories of dark matter,just asking for a different way of looking at the prob.
After much thought,Albert in his spacetime equations,touched
upon time.Dirac made much of this,and I think he was right in a way.
My point degruss,is that time passes faster in a low gravity field,
and that may explain the difference between spiral and elliptical
galaxies.

The gravitational redshift and the effect that gravity has on clock rates are the same phenomenon. This is nicely explained on pages 88-89 of Paul Davies book About Time. The gravitational redshift has been measured in the cores of large clusters of galaxies and at the cores of ellipticals. It is not a substitute for dark matter.

If I follow what you're saying you're proposing that the current gravity model is correct, it is just that astronomers have failed to recognize the implications of the time effect on the dark matter question?


Point is degruss,if time differs determined by gravity,
how do we measure a stars distance?

Parallax and Cepheid variables have worked quite nicely. :D

[/b]

D J
2003-Sep-16, 10:38 PM
What is it that is wrong with General Relativity? Keep it as layman as possible, please. :o :oops:
There's not necessarily anything wrong with general relativity. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss alternatives, of which Whitehead's is one.
Outch?
This book demonstrates that using "Conventional Wisdom", "Conventional Logic, "Newton's Physics" and Galilean coordinates, classical physics can explain all the observed phenomena attributed to relativity. Einstein's Relativity is completely useless.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/

The author don`t said than Einstein's Relativity don`t work but is useless.
I expect some hard reactions here. 8)

kilopi
2003-Sep-17, 02:54 AM
This book demonstrates that using "Conventional Wisdom", "Conventional Logic, "Newton's Physics" and Galilean coordinates, classical physics can explain all the observed phenomena attributed to relativity.
Does this page (http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/EINSTEIN/Chapter6.html#Section2) say that the mass of Mercury decreases as it gets closer to the Sun? How is that "classical physics"?

The author don`t said than Einstein's Relativity don`t work but is useless.
Isn't that a contradiction?

D J
2003-Sep-17, 03:30 AM
The author don`t said than Einstein's Relativity don`t work but is useless.

Isn't that a contradiction?

I don`t think so.It is an opinion.

kilopi
2003-Sep-17, 04:04 AM
If it works, how can it be useless? Or did I misparse those negatives?

D J
2003-Sep-17, 04:10 AM
If it works, how can it be useless? Or did I misparse those negatives?
It was not necessary to created that equation (Einstein's Relativity).That is the meaning of the author demonstration.

nokton
2003-Sep-17, 07:29 PM
degruss asked me for alternatives,my thought was a different way
of thinking.BA, the creator of this site,I feel,is more interested in
truth than dogma,and against the exploitation of science to sell
newspapers or up ratings in other media.
I do not understand how degruss feels I accept the current gravity
model.The idea I was proposing,was that time varies determined by
local gravity the observer is in.If the observer is in a low gravity
environment then time will pass faster than it would to an observer
in a high gravity environment.Parallax and Cepheid variables do work
out nicely,in our time frame.How would they work out to an observer
in a spaceship moving at half lightspeed?

dgruss23
2003-Sep-17, 08:36 PM
degruss asked me for alternatives,my thought was a different way
of thinking.BA, the creator of this site,I feel,is more interested in
truth than dogma,and against the exploitation of science to sell
newspapers or up ratings in other media.

As opposed to who?



I do not understand how degruss feels I accept the current gravity
model.

Because you said this:


No degruss am not into questioning the current theories of dark
matter,just asking for a different way of looking at the prob.
After much thought,Albert in his spacetime equations,touched
upon time.Dirac made much of this,and I think he was right in a way.

and because what you just said here:


The idea I was proposing,was that time varies determined by
local gravity the observer is in.If the observer is in a low gravity
environment then time will pass faster than it would to an observer
in a high gravity environment.

is nothing new but instead in very well stated agreement with General Relativity. If you're proposing something new you haven't yet stated anything different than what is currently accepted.



Parallax and Cepheid variables do work
out nicely,in our time frame.How would they work out to an observer
in a spaceship moving at half lightspeed?

Einstein's relativity deals with this. Again Paul Davies book "About Time" is a nice introduction to the topic.

Grey
2003-Sep-18, 03:33 AM
This book demonstrates that using "Conventional Wisdom", "Conventional Logic, "Newton's Physics" and Galilean coordinates, classical physics can explain all the observed phenomena attributed to relativity. Einstein's Relativity is completely useless.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/

The author don`t said than Einstein's Relativity don`t work but is useless.
I expect some hard reactions here. 8)
Well, you know what I think (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=106009#106009) of Marmet's ideas, and that's just on one section of his work. So I'll be happy to let other people talk about this one. :)

D J
2003-Sep-18, 04:40 AM
This book demonstrates that using "Conventional Wisdom", "Conventional Logic, "Newton's Physics" and Galilean coordinates, classical physics can explain all the observed phenomena attributed to relativity. Einstein's Relativity is completely useless.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/

The author don`t said than Einstein's Relativity don`t work but is useless.
I expect some hard reactions here. 8)
Well, you know what I think (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=106009#106009) of Marmet's ideas, and that's just on one section of his work. So I'll be happy to let other people talk about this one. :)
Hmm I think you should not underestimated the works of Marmet he as leaded to interesting observations made by further researchs from dgruss23 about -baryonic dark matter-.
Now about Einstein Relativity it seem than he made the demonstration than
this equation was not necessary.

nokton
2003-Sep-18, 06:16 PM
degruss tells me I have nothing new to add,would have appreciated
his understanding,and his claim,that concepts can be taught.The blind,
lead the blind.
Am not against Albert,he is my hero.Just asking for a different way
of thinking about time.Even Albert said about his evaluation of the
gravitational constant,'this was my greatest error,'Albert made mistakes
yes,don't we all?Understanding is one thing,concept is greater.
A fouth grade student can recite the circumference of a circle as
2pi R.How many understand the concept?
The point I am trying to make is in line with Albert,we see a picture
depicted by a telescope,and make assumptions defined by our time frame,when what we are observing contains many different time frames,
dependent on the gravity field the observer is in,and the relative time.

dgruss23
2003-Sep-18, 07:10 PM
degruss tells me I have nothing new to add,would have appreciated
his understanding,and his claim,that concepts can be taught.The blind,
lead the blind.

nokton, I think the problem here is a language barrier. From what I can tell, English is not your first language and perhaps that is creating some misunderstanding. For example, I did not say that you have nothing new to add. What I did say was that what you have already expressed is not a new idea, but part of the standard views - at least as you have expressed it. If you have a new idea you need to explain it in terms that show how it is different from the standard views and you have not yet done that.


Am not against Albert,he is my hero.Just asking for a different way
of thinking about time.


The point I am trying to make is in line with Albert,we see a picture depicted by a telescope,and make assumptions defined by our time frame,when what we are observing contains many different time frames,
dependent on the gravity field the observer is in,and the relative time.

I understand that you say you are thinking about time differently, but you need to show us how your thoughts are different than the mainstream and you have not yet done that. By that I do not mean that you have nothing new to add, but that you have not yet added anything new.

nokton
2003-Sep-18, 08:34 PM
Thankyou for your post degruss,and the way you expressed your
response to my proposition.Just an idea which have given much thought
to.Was expressed as an idea to be considered by others.
Time frames differ according to the time frame the observer is in.
And the time frame is dictated by the gravity well the observer is in.
When we see via our space telescope a photo of the Andromeda
galaxy, wonderful as it is,feel it is time in suspension,and not time
as it really is.Think what we are seeing are multiple time frames and
interpreting them as one.The point or idea,degruss,am trying to make.
Is the concept that time is variable a substitute for the current unresolved
theory of dark matter

d 2022
2003-Sep-18, 10:16 PM
When we see via our space telescope a photo of the Andromeda galaxy, wonderful as it is,feel it is time in suspension,and not time as it really is.
Edited
Do you meant we see Andromeda as it was back in time?I don`t think Andromeda must have changing to much over that amount of time to the point it will be unreconnaisable. :wink:



Time frames differ according to the time frame the observer is in. And the time frame is dictated by the gravity well the observer is in.

I read sometime ago than the time frame depend on the level of energy.
The author tells about a system actually at work -able- to change the time frame by changing the level of energy by the variation of an artificially created electromagnetic field.So individuals placed inside this artificially modificated
level of energy depending on how the system is modulated can experience a slowing or an acceleration of the time rate relative to the normal time outside the field.Unfortunately the author don`t gives the details on how to built the device. :wink:

nokton
2003-Sep-19, 06:06 PM
Thanx for your post degruss,
The time frame is set by the 'thickness' of space,as determined by
local gravity.Time,as ever,is seen by a local observer,as a measurement
between one event and another.
Did not seek to imply that Andromeda has changed over time,
my point is how we view it,and draw the conclusions we do,within the
concept of our time frame.We place great store in the measurements
we make.Strange,our measurement of the age the oldest stars are in conflict with our measured age of the universe.Something is wrong
degruss,I do not pretend to have the answer,just asking for different
concepts and ideas to be evaluated,per adua ad astra

kilopi
2003-Sep-19, 06:10 PM
Something is wrong degruss,I do not pretend to have the answer,just asking for different concepts and ideas to be evaluated
But, that's what we always do... :)

nokton
2003-Sep-19, 07:06 PM
Then if that is what you do,evaluating new concepts and ideas,
why did it take 50 years to evaluate and accept plate tectonics
when that was first put forward?

dgruss23
2003-Sep-19, 08:24 PM
Then if that is what you do,evaluating new concepts and ideas,
why did it take 50 years to evaluate and accept plate tectonics
when that was first put forward?

Continental drift was the idea initially put forward. Wegener had the continents moving through the ocean crust. Despite his evidence for the break-up and movement of pangaea, he could not provide a mechanism for moving the continents and his concept of the continents plowing through ocean crust was wrong.

Plate tectonics differs from Wegener's continental drift. It has the entire surface of the Earth broken into crustal plates. Collisional plates are thought to explain the ocean trenches, volcanic arcs (both island and on continents) and himalayan type mountains. Divergent plate boundaries are found at the mid-ocean ridges and rift valleys. I'm sure you're familiar with this, but it is not Wegener's continental drift. The movement of continents was largely unaccepted for 50 years because nobody could explain how it was happening.

kilopi
2003-Sep-20, 07:21 AM
Then if that is what you do,evaluating new concepts and ideas, why did it take 50 years to evaluate and accept plate tectonics when that was first put forward?
Plate tectonics was first put forward around 1967 by Jason Morgan. Or Dan McKenzie. Wegener had proposed his theory of continental drift over fifty years before, but also had the continents separating at a rate many times greater than they actually do. It wasn't until the early sixties that Harry Hess proposed the idea of sea-floor spreading.

All of which was before my time. :)

nokton
2003-Sep-20, 06:07 PM
degruss 23,am aware of the shortcomings of Wegeners ideas about
his concept of continental drift,and you express the truth of this eloquently.
The point I was trying to make,you have made.Nobody could explain how
it was happening,so dismissed it,until Dan Mckenzie in 1967 proposed
the current idea of plate movement,which was extended the following
year by Jason Morgan.That takes nothing away from Wegeners concept
that the land masses of the earth are in in a process of movement.He
was right,but had not true understanding of it,so made a guess,based
on his current knowledge.Are we not the same here,guessing about
dark matter,to make our current theories fit and explain what we do
not yet understand?

kilopi
2003-Sep-21, 07:13 PM
Nobody could explain how
it was happening,so dismissed it,until Dan Mckenzie in 1967 proposed the current idea of plate movement,which was extended the following year by Jason Morgan.
The history of plate tectonics is complicated. Jason Morgan gave a talk in 1967 at an AGU meeting, but changed the subject after the talk had been publicized. Instead, he presented his ideas of plate tectonics. The notes and slides from the talk were lost, until the mid-nineties, when another researcher found his copy in a pile of documents, and published them. They clearly set out the principles of plate tectonics. Morgan published his ideas in an article the next year, 1968. In the meantime, Mckenzie published his own description of plate tectonics.

Could the two men have developed the idea independently? Certainly, such a thing has happened before. In this case, the details are murky--Mckenzie was at the conference at which Morgan gave his presentation, and has said he actually was in the room when it started, but left early. He went home and developed his version of plate tectonics. Morgan has never pressed the issue at all. In fact, he is famous for a remark he made (to John McPhee, I think) when he was asked what he was going to do next, after developing the famous theory of plate tectonics. His answer: try to prove it wrong.

Even still, after 1968, there was a nagging question of the viscosity of the Earth--it was still considered way too high to support plate tectonics. That objection was dismissed in an important but little-known-outside-geophysics paper by Goldreich and Toomre, published in 1969. They pointed out reasons that the evidence for the high viscosity of the lower earth was not a valid argument, and that opened the gates for plate tectonics to be accepted.

However, over the past thirty years, the best estimates of that viscosity have climbed back up to where they no longer support plate tectonics--and the research continues into how to resolve the issue, almost a hundred years after Wegener.

Are we not the same here,guessing about dark matter,to make our current theories fit and explain what we do not yet understand?
As I said, that's what we do.

nokton
2003-Sep-21, 08:54 PM
Thanx Kilopi for your response,appreciate.
Take your point about Goldreich and Toomre and the continuing
development of theories and explanations regarding continental
movement,I am not updated on this as you are,thanx.
My point is,if an open mind is kept on new ideas and concepts,and
dogma is seen as something that can be challenged,would that not
result in better and more rapid solutions to understanding concepts
we are trying to grasp?This was my point about dark matter.

kilopi
2003-Sep-21, 10:45 PM
My point is,if an open mind is kept on new ideas and concepts,and dogma is seen as something that can be challenged,would that not result in better and more rapid solutions to understanding concepts we are trying to grasp?This was my point about dark matter.
Yes, but my point is--that is exactly what scientists do. They're only human, and errors get made--and some are dishonest, that's been proven also. But in general, problems are solved, mysteries cleared up, solutions created--using new and ingenious theories, sometimes. If there is some aspect of our efforts that is deficient, give me the details, and we'll try to address the problem.

soop
2003-Sep-22, 01:15 AM
Refering to the site concerning classical explanations for non-classical phenomenon...

How does Classical physics account for the increased half-life if accelerated unstable particles?

The experiment is that two unstable particles (I believe they were pi muons) are created symotaneously. One of them is shot through an accelerator and travels at relativistic speeds. The result is that the particle traveling rapidly lives much longer than it is supposed to.

The article goes into something about the increase in kenetic energy/bohr radius changing the atomic clock, but in the experiment above, the object in question was not an atomic clock but an elementary particle without electrons assosisated with it (Bohr radius does not apply).

To my knowledge, there is no newtonian explaination for this. Anyone know of one?

nokton
2003-Sep-22, 05:49 PM
Kilopi,you wrote'if there is some aspect of 'our' efforts that is
deficient,give me the details,and 'we'll' try to address the prob'.
You have made the point of my last post by default Kilopi

dgruss23
2003-Sep-22, 08:42 PM
My point is,if an open mind is kept on new ideas and concepts,and dogma is seen as something that can be challenged,would that not result in better and more rapid solutions to understanding concepts we are trying to grasp?This was my point about dark matter.

I think most would agree with you nokton. I've pointed out numerous times that tentative evidence for the dark matter being entirely baryonic in nature is out there. But then some immediately reject that option because it flat out contradicts Big Bang nucleosynthesis.

However, your point is well taken. If researchers are open minded enough to consider the baryonic dark matter possibility, the might put more energy into finding it and the issue might be resolved more quickly. Even a null result would allow the conclusion that "Ok its not baryonic."

As things currently stand it is assumed that dark matter is not baryonic in observational studies and computer modeling. The assumption may be correct, but it may not be since the full census of baryonic dark matter is woefully incomplete.

Eta C
2003-Sep-22, 08:53 PM
Refering to the site concerning classical explanations for non-classical phenomenon...

How does Classical physics account for the increased half-life if accelerated unstable particles?

The experiment is that two unstable particles (I believe they were pi muons) are created symotaneously. One of them is shot through an accelerator and travels at relativistic speeds. The result is that the particle traveling rapidly lives much longer than it is supposed to.

You actually mean pi mesons here. The muon is a lepton and realted to the electron. You do have the right idea here, though. Cosmic ray interactions high in the atmosphere produce muons. The number observed at the Earth's surface is larger than would be expected classically. However, it can be predicted by taking into account the relativistic lengthening of the muon's lifetime (as seen in our reference frame). Similarly, relativistic effects have to be taken into account in particle accelerators. Relativistic calculations give the proper strength for the magnetic fields that hold the beam in orbit. Classical calculations would not.

nokton
2003-Sep-23, 10:20 PM
dgruss,if the constraints due to big bang nucleosynthesis can be
circumvented'dark matter' may turn out to be baryons,as you proposed.
You raised the point about ellipticals being deficient in 'dark' matter.
Ellipticals are created by two or more galaxies meeting and integrating
the result is runaway star formation,and black holes 'eating' what is left
Neutral,ionised,and molecular hydrogen gas(baryons)would be depleted
as compared to a pristine spiral galaxy

D J
2003-Sep-23, 10:37 PM
If researchers are open minded enough to consider the baryonic dark matter possibility, the might put more energy into finding it and the issue might be resolved more quickly. Even a null result would allow the conclusion that "Ok its not baryonic."

As things currently stand it is assumed that dark matter is not baryonic in observational studies and computer modeling. The assumption may be correct, but it may not be since the full census of baryonic dark matter is woefully incomplete.
Good observation.In fact they don`t seem very interested in the possibility than baryonic dark matter may be the solution they prefer keeping a part of mystery to justified funding for further researchs for had hoc material.
:D

dgruss23
2003-Sep-24, 02:41 AM
dgruss,if the constraints due to big bang nucleosynthesis can be
circumvented'dark matter' may turn out to be baryons,as you proposed.
You raised the point about ellipticals being deficient in 'dark' matter.
Ellipticals are created by two or more galaxies meeting and integrating
the result is runaway star formation,and black holes 'eating' what is left
Neutral,ionised,and molecular hydrogen gas(baryons)would be depleted
as compared to a pristine spiral galaxy

That's right nokton and its what makes the baryonic dark matter option intriguing. If the dark matter was baryonic in the form of molecular gas such as H2, then it makes sense that galaxies which form by merging and depletion of star forming gas would also be depleted of their dark matter too. In fact the original papers by Pfenniger that propose the possibility of dark matter being entirely baryonic point to some characteristics of spirals along the Hubble sequence that may indicate much the same thing.

dgruss23
2003-Sep-24, 02:43 AM
If researchers are open minded enough to consider the baryonic dark matter possibility, the might put more energy into finding it and the issue might be resolved more quickly. Even a null result would allow the conclusion that "Ok its not baryonic."

As things currently stand it is assumed that dark matter is not baryonic in observational studies and computer modeling. The assumption may be correct, but it may not be since the full census of baryonic dark matter is woefully incomplete.
Good observation.In fact they don`t seem very interested in the possibility than baryonic dark matter may be the solution they prefer keeping a part of mystery to justified funding for further researchs for had hoc material.
:D

Its certainly true that you will not look for that which you think does not exist. I don't think there's any intentional conspiracy, but the non-baryonic dark matter scenario is so much a part of the thinking that the other option simply doesn't occur to or seem reasonable to most.

D J
2003-Sep-24, 03:14 AM
Its certainly true that you will not look for that which you think does not exist. I don't think there's any intentional conspiracy, but the non-baryonic dark matter scenario is so much a part of the thinking that the other option simply doesn't occur to or seem reasonable to most.
I am not talking about a "conspiracy" but about a reason for keeping their jobs.Can you imagine the day when researchers will say "we have solving all the mystery of the universe?"

dgruss23
2003-Sep-24, 10:46 AM
Its certainly true that you will not look for that which you think does not exist. I don't think there's any intentional conspiracy, but the non-baryonic dark matter scenario is so much a part of the thinking that the other option simply doesn't occur to or seem reasonable to most.
I am not talking about a "conspiracy" but about a reason for keeping their jobs.Can you imagine the day when researchers will say "we have solving all the mystery of the universe?"

I know you weren't implying a conspiracy Orion. I wanted it clear that I don't view it as a conspiracy either. :D

nokton
2003-Sep-24, 07:59 PM
Orion makes a good point tho',current world politics make it even
better.I feel Orion is not far off the truth,except for one thing,we can
never,at our stage of evolution,explain everything,so 'their' jobs are
safe.Correct me if I err,this site,and it's creator,our host,is dedicated
to exposing the flaws in how we view the truth about astronomy.
Orions last post is valid comment,the scientific community has an
agenda.Where does that leave dgruss,and others like him who
have a serious contribution to make?I would suggest we have enough
brains in this forum,without funding problems,to make a serious
contribution to the understanding of where we are,and what we are about.

kilopi
2003-Sep-25, 02:51 AM
Can you imagine the day when researchers will say "we have solving all the mystery of the universe?"
Not only can I imagine it, I think that day occurred already, about a hundred years ago. :)

russ_watters
2003-Sep-25, 05:36 AM
Can you imagine the day when researchers will say "we have solving all the mystery of the universe?"
Not only can I imagine it, I think that day occurred already, about a hundred years ago. :) I'm pretty sure its happened several times actually.

dgruss23
2003-Sep-25, 10:54 AM
Can you imagine the day when researchers will say "we have solving all the mystery of the universe?"
Not only can I imagine it, I think that day occurred already, about a hundred years ago. :)

I thought the universe's greatest secret was solved with the invention of duct tape! :)

kilopi
2003-Sep-25, 11:49 AM
I thought the universe's greatest secret was solved with the invention of duct tape!
Baling wire can still be applied in velocity regimes less than 5 meter/sec. Ancient peoples used mud, back when they had epicycles instead of bicycles--nowadays, we have motorcycles.

nokton
2003-Sep-25, 07:18 PM
drgruss,am ashamed of your last post,thought of you as
special.Someone with intellect and intelligence,seems I was wrong.
Was prepared to fight your corner on your concept of baryonic
matter explaining 'dark matter',and trying to put your opinions and
concepts forward.Your episode regarding duck tape reduces me to
despair

dgruss23
2003-Sep-25, 08:31 PM
drgruss,am ashamed of your last post,thought of you as
special.Someone with intellect and intelligence,seems I was wrong.
Was prepared to fight your corner on your concept of baryonic
matter explaining 'dark matter',and trying to put your opinions and
concepts forward.Your episode regarding duck tape reduces me to
despair

What are you talking about nokton? It was a joke! People joke about duct tape fixing just about anything. Its ok to be lighthearted and jovial once in a while. And I'm certainly a person that likes to throw in the occasional stupid humor.

But that has nothing to do with the dark matter issue. Either the references I've cited on baryonic dark matter are worth looking at or those references are not worth looking at. The science I talk about is the same science whether I choose to crack a dumb joke or choose to remain eternally serious.

Besides, a person that holds against the mainstream views has to keep a good a sense of humor. Its the only way to keep oneself from having a stroke! :D

nokton
2003-Sep-25, 08:47 PM
Take your point dgruss,please forgive my mistake,and forgive
me in that I cannot,as yet,see the relevance of levity within serious
discourse.Perhaps I am at fault here,I ask your indulgence if I am