This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

Welcome to Our Community

Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.

Sun has been emitting unknown particles, carbon dating may be completely off

Discussion in 'Bar' started by 006, May 9, 2011.

  1. John_C

    John_C formerly Skeksis268

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,457
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Coventry, UK
    Lol at this shit. Go learn something instead of fapping along in the conspiracy circlejerk.

    Seriously Jeff et. al. it's a lost cause, he's never gonna bother to do enough work to get the first clue.
     
  2. LeSedna

    LeSedna Mat or Mateo

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    5,404
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Montpellier, France
    Don't you understand, it's the jewish/scientific lobbying trying to control the mass !
     
  3. JBroll

    JBroll I MIX WITH PHYSICS!!!!

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2006
    Messages:
    5,919
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX, USA
    I should have been clearer - the bulk of 'stuff' is dark energy, so while dark matter is what everyone says dark energy is the dominant factor. I goofed that one pretty severely. The other issue is that when you go too far into the stuff you basically set a few fundamental constants equal to 1 to simplify the math, and then you can't tell anything from anything else - distance and time, mass and energy, blah-dee-dah, and so on all get lumped together because noone wants to write 'c' and 'h-bar' that many times.

    Things are still pretty tangible, just not for the reasons you thought. I think I know roughly where you're getting nervous about the stuff, and it's somewhere after 'stuff you pick up if you learn a little physics' and before 'stuff that clarifies the typically lousy misconceptions after you've learned a lot of physics'.

    And that makes matter intangible? We should be able to accept 'well, the classical framework doesn't work everywhere' without throwing out stuff altogether. Dealing with quantum mechanics isn't as mysterious and magical as the funny-haired people on television make it out to be, it just requires some math.

    Even if you toss out the idea that particles are The One True Physics Thing, you still basically recover the same physics - fields (which a lot of people think of only as 'the stuff in between things') are the things you work with in quantum field theory, string theory has strings, et cetera, but we still have matter basically falling out of the equations one way or another.

    Explaining mass is a bit tricky, but that keeps being improved (Thanks, ridiculously-expensive and complicated particle accelerators built wholly on lies, deceit, and an international conspiracy to suppress outside opinions!) and generally things aren't as hopeless and confusing as they seem. (Caveat: again, math. You need math. Lots and lots of math, it seems at first, but actually it's not too horrible.)

    This is skirting around the main point - it doesn't interact with light (and therefore not with the electromagnetic force, as that's mediated by photons), so the only thing we can observe it doing is screwing with things that have mass.

    That can be a key part of figuring things out, but do the math before you settle too quickly on one idea... especially with anything involving quantum mechanics, where the way we handle things is still largely analogous to a method for approaching problems in classical mechanics.

    (Of course, that method is the difficult one that you don't see until you go too far in for your own good - because anything else would be silly, obviously - and a lot of physicists seem to neglect the math behind the 'translation'... so explaining the basics without 'Wooooo: stuff is actually wibbley bits of not-quite-stuff, except when it's not, and mysterious quantum boobledeegooble' can be a bit tricky. And then of course you get non-physicists who don't get it trying to explain it, and that's a whole different mess altogether...)

    I'm actually curious to see how much work it could take to take a nonsense thread and derail it onto a useful course. (It's also nice to finally see someone worse at physics than the people I deal with in the real world, and respond as I would to them if I weren't supposed to follow stupid things like 'codes of conduct'... and 'proportional response'... and the Geneva Convention...)

    Jef
     
  4. Genius Gone Insane

    Genius Gone Insane http://www.¯\(°_o)/¯.com

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Messages:
    5,718
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Now why would you do that? :erk: That's rather inflammatory.
     
  5. JBroll

    JBroll I MIX WITH PHYSICS!!!!

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2006
    Messages:
    5,919
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX, USA
    Because you will assimila- erm, be upgrad- erm, join us and we shall rule the galax- well, balls, guess that secret's out now.

    Jef
     
  6. Genius Gone Insane

    Genius Gone Insane http://www.¯\(°_o)/¯.com

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Messages:
    5,718
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Here, I like Dr. Soria's take, there should be more of it:

    Astronomers talk about it all the time, yet the presence of dark matter has never been directly verified. In essence, it is a convenient ad-hoc term to reconcile the observed motion of galaxies with the accepted laws of Newtonian gravity, Dr Soria suggests."I would not be certain that dark matter exists," he admits.

    Dark matter, he adds, is "the lazy option". The hard option, he says, would be to admit that the law of gravity is wrong at large scales and needs to be improved. "Most astronomers prefer to take the easy option, but then they have no clue what dark matter could be."

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/kept-in-the-dark-20130614-2o8ps.html#ixzz2Wrupnlaz
     
  7. JBroll

    JBroll I MIX WITH PHYSICS!!!!

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2006
    Messages:
    5,919
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX, USA
    The problem with saying it that way is that people like you will drastically misinterpret the implication in 'lazy'. Considering how much work is being put into understanding gravity, it's not at all like we're hiding from the idea that gravity needs revision.

    Jef
     
  8. kass

    kass Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Messages:
    755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    There are plenty of modified gravity theories that exist and ARE STILL BEING RESEARCHED.


    The trouble is, they are problematic and do a much worse job of explaining observations than the DM hypothesis.


    Get over it.


    DM is supported by multiple independent lines of reasoning.


    GET OVER IT.
     
  9. Jind

    Jind Grrrr!!! (I'm a bear)

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,546
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I would expect GGI to jump to wild conclusions if the term "fuzzy logic" was utilized to describe something scientific as it implies probability and variability in this "for certain answers" world he is looking for.

    I tend to think that whole "adapts to changing data" is always the sticking point for him. The idea that others areas of thought and observation don't discount each other simply because of a lack of definitive proof or answers in relatively short periods of time.

    One might conclude that it's "lazy option" to simply cherry pick scientific data/opinion that supports the possibility you want to be the truth instead of the general acceptance that theories are just that - theories. ;)
     
  10. Genius Gone Insane

    Genius Gone Insane http://www.¯\(°_o)/¯.com

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Messages:
    5,718
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    It's not a question of what I want. I want the same thing as most everyone else -- something that works. I find it frustrating that so much time and money is being put into one direction when there are so many other possible directions to go. Probably 99.9% of all funding in this area are going toward dark matter research -- searching for a physical dark matter. Can't we put 10%, 5%, or even 1% of that funding into alternative "fringe" research that studies non-conventional gravitational models? I am sure there are many young, bright, fresh minds that would love to take on that challenge of working with and testing fringe theories. Why do we deny them that opportunity?
     
  11. kass

    kass Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Messages:
    755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    You missed the part where alternative ideas ARE STILL BEING RESEARCHED
     
  12. Jind

    Jind Grrrr!!! (I'm a bear)

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,546
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Now your quoting un-sourced percentages as proof that something is happening as you see it. How do you know that "alternative" theories have no funding? If scientists are working on something you can bet it's being funded somehow by some means either public or private.

    So your primary concern is the "time and money" aspect of scientific research, that it tends to be directed at the most promising, or likely, avenue of possibility, the most supported idea(s) by a large majority of scientists?

    You really want the public and private sector to just willy nilly toss money at "finge" ideas simply because they are counter to the generally accepted probable theory/outcome?

    Your "question everything" nature costs money too. Alternative theories (simply by their alternative nature) do not a promising investment make! (possible Yoda voice once again);)
     
  13. Terminus

    Terminus Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,799
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    GCI you need to get on the horn with Michio Kaku, Alexei Fillipenko, Neil DeGrasse Tyson or that hottie Amy Mainzer and get your evil plot to topple all of mankind's scientific greatest achievements in motion.
     
  14. JBroll

    JBroll I MIX WITH PHYSICS!!!!

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2006
    Messages:
    5,919
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX, USA
    GGI, this'll basically explain a lot... off the top of your head, name (and briefly summarize) as many proposed modern theories of gravity as you can. (This does not include nonsense like the electric universe. I mean things that actual physicists work on.) You may be surprised at the amount of what could be called 'fringe research', i.e. not following the most popular model or two, is already occurring. Once again, you've invented a lousy enemy and shown nothing more than your own inability to even tilt at windmills.

    Jeff
     
  15. LeSedna

    LeSedna Mat or Mateo

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    5,404
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Montpellier, France
    Let me put this simple GGI : money is put where the answer is the most probably located. Fringe science is called fringe because it's not proven enough and sound less reasonable than other sciences. Fringe is also just a word, and is usually used when referring to the lousiest ones of them.

    Sometimes we might miss something, but if you look at a larger picture, this is the way to go to use money the most efficient way and progress the fastest. Just see how exponentially fast science is going forward.
     
  16. MotherEel

    MotherEel Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    908
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Blue Mountains, Australia
    And that may inherently be the problem. The lay person won't be able to understand anything of this nature until another 70 years has passed and things are 'accepted'.
     
  17. JBroll

    JBroll I MIX WITH PHYSICS!!!!

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2006
    Messages:
    5,919
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX, USA
    The lay person can easily become more by reading actual science.

    Laypeople certainly don't understand quantum mechanics today, but everyone sure as hell loves using their computers, so it's not like 'laypeople don't get it' is a dealbreaker...

    Jef
     
  18. Genius Gone Insane

    Genius Gone Insane http://www.¯\(°_o)/¯.com

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Messages:
    5,718
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Off the top of my head I am aware of MOND and of course the generally accepted theory of how gravity works. I am aware that there is much research going on today toward defining gravity waves and determining if they even exist. By no means do I claim to know all of the mainstream gravitational theories. If you can provide me with links to a few that you feel may be beneficial for me to try to read, I would be appreciative.
     
  19. JBroll

    JBroll I MIX WITH PHYSICS!!!!

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2006
    Messages:
    5,919
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX, USA
    MOND is not in particularly good shape. Like I said earlier, The Road To Reality will be a good start - it looks like it'll be a tough read, but it contains much of the necessary mathematics. Also, I think you'll enjoy seeing an eminent mathematical physicist not falling head over heels with string theory and discussing loop quantum gravity (those two, by the way, should be in anyone's list of "theories of everything to understand at least on a Wikipedia-article level") and his own theory of twistors (much harder to understand on a Wikipedia-article level... for now...) at a level somewhat above 'easy pop science'.

    Jef
     
  20. kass

    kass Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Messages:
    755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    I was reading this earlier today:

    http://phys.org/news198135631.html







    I wonder how these rebel physicists bucked the entrenched status-quo establishment, and got published in a prestigious physics journal.
     

Share This Page