| |
Main
Date: 14 Aug 2006 16:31:00
From: Arnold
Subject: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
Aug. 14, 2006
Erica Hupp/Dwayne Brown
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1237/1726
Megan Watzke
Chandra X-ray Center, Cambridge, Mass.
617-496-7998
MEDIA ADVISORY: M06-128
NASA ANNOUNCES DARK MATTER DISCOVERY
Astronomers who used NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory will host a
media teleconference at 1 p.m. EDT Monday, Aug. 21, to announce how
dark and normal matter have been forced apart in an extraordinarily
energetic collision.
Reporters must call Megan Watzke at the Chandra Press Office at: 617-
496-7998 or e-mail: mwatzke@cfa.harvard.edu for participation
information. Shortly before the start of the briefing, images and
graphics about the research will be posted at:
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/1e0657/
Briefing participants:
- Maxim Markevitch, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics, Cambridge, Mass.
- Doug Clowe, postdoral fellow, University of Arizona, Tucson,
Ariz.
- Sean Carroll, assistant professor of physics, University of Chicago,
Ill.
A video file about the discovery will air on NASA TV at noon, Aug. 21.
Audio of the event will be streamed live on the Web at:
http://www.nasa.gov/newsaudio. For NASA TV streaming video, schedule
and downlink information, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/ntv
For information about NASA and agency programs, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/home
--
25° 45' S
28° 12' E
GMT+2
Join the Planetary Society
http://www.planetary.org
|
|
| |
Date: 16 Aug 2006 09:34:00
From: John Baez
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
In article <ebq1f4$2ap$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net >,
Arnold <Arnold@nospam.com > wrote:
>Astronomers who used NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory will host a
>media teleconference at 1 p.m. EDT Monday, Aug. 21, to announce how
>dark and normal matter have been forced apart in an extraordinarily
>energetic collision.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_M06128_dark_matter.html
>Briefing participants:
>- Maxim Markevitch, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
>Astrophysics, Cambridge, Mass.
Given the description and the presence of Maxim Markevitch, I bet
this is about the Bullet Cluster 1E0657-56 - he talked about this
at a conference last November:
http://cxc.harvard.edu/symposium_2005/proceedings/theme_energy.html#abs23
The Bullet Cluster consists of colliding galaxies where the gas
crashed to a halt and got really hot, while the dark matter kept
going straight through. Markevitch used the Chandra observatory
to see X-rays from the hot gas. People can see the dark matter
because its gravity bends the light from galaxies further back.
And, they're not in the same place!
Also last year, people found signs of a galaxy almost entirely
made of dark matter:
http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1023641
So, dark matter is looking real, and the question is: what is it?
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2006 11:10:32
From: Robert Clark
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
Igor wrote:
> Robert Clark wrote:
> > John Baez wrote:
> > > In article <ebq1f4$2ap$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>,
> > > Arnold <Arnold@nospam.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Astronomers who used NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory will host a
> > > >media teleconference at 1 p.m. EDT Monday, Aug. 21, to announce how
> > > >dark and normal matter have been forced apart in an extraordinarily
> > > >energetic collision.
> > >
> > > http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_M06128_dark_matter.html
> > >
> > > >Briefing participants:
> > > >- Maxim Markevitch, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
> > > >Astrophysics, Cambridge, Mass.
> > >
> > > Given the description and the presence of Maxim Markevitch, I bet
> > > this is about the Bullet Cluster 1E0657-56 - he talked about this
> > > at a conference last November:
> > >
> > > http://cxc.harvard.edu/symposium_2005/proceedings/theme_energy.html#abs23
> > >
> > > The Bullet Cluster consists of colliding galaxies where the gas
> > > crashed to a halt and got really hot, while the dark matter kept
> > > going straight through. Markevitch used the Chandra observatory
> > > to see X-rays from the hot gas. People can see the dark matter
> > > because its gravity bends the light from galaxies further back.
> > > And, they're not in the same place!
> > >
> > > Also last year, people found signs of a galaxy almost entirely
> > > made of dark matter:
> > >
> > > http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1023641
> > >
> > > So, dark matter is looking real, and the question is: what is it?
> >
> > The aether.
> >
> > - Bob Clark
>
> It's really too bad that no one explained to you that the aether
> concept has been dead for over a hundred years. You might want to look
> it up.
If you read about the theories of modern physics, you find that EVERY
one of them have a tenet that the true absolute vacuum still contains
energy.
Bob Clark
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 01:51:21
From: Bill Hobba
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1155751832.337573.312830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Igor wrote:
>> Robert Clark wrote:
>> > John Baez wrote:
>> > > In article <ebq1f4$2ap$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>,
>> > > Arnold <Arnold@nospam.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >Astronomers who used NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory will host a
>> > > >media teleconference at 1 p.m. EDT Monday, Aug. 21, to announce how
>> > > >dark and normal matter have been forced apart in an extraordinarily
>> > > >energetic collision.
>> > >
>> > > http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_M06128_dark_matter.html
>> > >
>> > > >Briefing participants:
>> > > >- Maxim Markevitch, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
>> > > >Astrophysics, Cambridge, Mass.
>> > >
>> > > Given the description and the presence of Maxim Markevitch, I bet
>> > > this is about the Bullet Cluster 1E0657-56 - he talked about this
>> > > at a conference last November:
>> > >
>> > > http://cxc.harvard.edu/symposium_2005/proceedings/theme_energy.html#abs23
>> > >
>> > > The Bullet Cluster consists of colliding galaxies where the gas
>> > > crashed to a halt and got really hot, while the dark matter kept
>> > > going straight through. Markevitch used the Chandra observatory
>> > > to see X-rays from the hot gas. People can see the dark matter
>> > > because its gravity bends the light from galaxies further back.
>> > > And, they're not in the same place!
>> > >
>> > > Also last year, people found signs of a galaxy almost entirely
>> > > made of dark matter:
>> > >
>> > > http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1023641
>> > >
>> > > So, dark matter is looking real, and the question is: what is it?
>> >
>> > The aether.
>> >
>> > - Bob Clark
>>
>> It's really too bad that no one explained to you that the aether
>> concept has been dead for over a hundred years. You might want to look
>> it up.
>
> If you read about the theories of modern physics, you find that EVERY
> one of them have a tenet that the true absolute vacuum still contains
> energy.
But every single one of then obeys relativity so does not define a rest
frame.
Bill
>
>
> Bob Clark
>
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2006 19:29:53
From: George Dishman
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1155751832.337573.312830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Igor wrote:
>> Robert Clark wrote:
>> > John Baez wrote:
>> > > In article <ebq1f4$2ap$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>,
...
>> > > http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1023641
>> > >
>> > > So, dark matter is looking real, and the question is: what is it?
>> >
>> > The aether.
>>
>> It's really too bad that no one explained to you that the aether
>> concept has been dead for over a hundred years. You might want to look
>> it up.
>
> If you read about the theories of modern physics, you find that EVERY
> one of them have a tenet that the true absolute vacuum still contains
> energy.
But very few of them have a rigid crystalline substance
filling the whole of space through which matter passes
unimpeded and whose vibrations we perceive as light.
George
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2006 14:42:18
From: Traveler
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:29:53 +0100, "George Dishman"
<george@briar.demon.co.uk > wrote:
>
>"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1155751832.337573.312830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> Igor wrote:
>>> Robert Clark wrote:
>>> > John Baez wrote:
>>> > > In article <ebq1f4$2ap$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>,
>...
>>> > > http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1023641
>>> > >
>>> > > So, dark matter is looking real, and the question is: what is it?
>>> >
>>> > The aether.
>>>
>>> It's really too bad that no one explained to you that the aether
>>> concept has been dead for over a hundred years. You might want to look
>>> it up.
>>
>> If you read about the theories of modern physics, you find that EVERY
>> one of them have a tenet that the true absolute vacuum still contains
>> energy.
>
>But very few of them have a rigid crystalline substance
>filling the whole of space through which matter passes
>unimpeded and whose vibrations we perceive as light.
The very fact that bodies move is proof that we are moving in an
immense and highly energetic 4-D lattice of particles. Causality
demands it. Why? Because every change (quantum jump) requires a cause
and this cause is an interaction. Aristotle redux.
The failure of the physics community to grasp something as fundamental
(not to mention, simple) as the causality of movement will go down as
one of the biggest blunders in the history of science, on a par with
the flat earth hypothesis. Yeah, it's truly pathetic. ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 18:50:38
From: Richard Saam
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
George Dishman wrote:
> "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1155751832.337573.312830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Igor wrote:
>>
>>>Robert Clark wrote:
>>>
>>>>John Baez wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <ebq1f4$2ap$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>,
>
> ...
>
>>>>>http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1023641
>>>>>
>>>>>So, dark matter is looking real, and the question is: what is it?
>>>>
>>>> The aether.
>>>
>>>It's really too bad that no one explained to you that the aether
>>>concept has been dead for over a hundred years. You might want to look
>>>it up.
>>
>>If you read about the theories of modern physics, you find that EVERY
>>one of them have a tenet that the true absolute vacuum still contains
>>energy.
>
>
> But very few of them have a rigid crystalline substance
> filling the whole of space through which matter passes
> unimpeded and whose vibrations we perceive as light.
>
> George
>
>
Reference:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9905007
Superconductivity, the Structure Scale of the Universe, Eighth Edition
This paper postulates a universal mass of 110 x electron mass
which when take times the speed of light squared (mc^2)
equals an energy of 56 Mev.
This mass is contained in resonant form 'crystalline' volumes in space
in accordance with CPT theorem
creating a density (6.38E-30 g/cc)
accounting for the dark matter in the universe.
Normally, this mass is an invisible entity
left over from the Big Bang
and congruent with the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR),
but when objects (planets, stars, Asteroids, galaxies,
black holes, Pioneer Space Craft and others)
pass through this extremely tenuous medium,
the radiation energy of 56 Mev is emitted.
In this context, this 56 Mev radiation should be all pervasive
and coming from any observed direction to the celestial sphere.
Ref:
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506359
Figure 3
indicates what looks to be
a peak of ExtraGalactic Black Body Radiation
at 56 Kev or (56,000 ev) or (5.6E4 ev)
as measured with EGRET
NASA satellite shown at:
http://cossc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/cgro/
All things being equal
this would appear to be a major contribution
and provide the basis of much further study.
and may answer in part Baez statement and conclusion:
"So, dark matter is looking real, and the question is: what is it?"
Looking forward to:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_M06128_dark_matter.html
Richard Saam
|
| | |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 10:15:53
From: jonathan
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
"John Baez" <baez@math.UUCP > wrote in message
news:ebuoq7$5ih$1@glue.ucr.edu...
> In article <ebq1f4$2ap$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>,
>
> So, dark matter is looking real, and the question is: what is it?
>
It's a system property, like a market force.
With tangible effects yet an ethereal existence.
Stop the system to examine it in detail and
the self tuning system property vanishes into
thin air.
When you can stick a fork into a market force, weigh
it and image it, then we can do the same for dark
energy and matter.
A Quintessential Introduction to Dark Energy
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/steinhardt.pdf
Paul J. Steinhardt
Department of Physics
Princeton University
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/
Jonathan
s
|
| | |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 06:49:04
From: PD
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
Traveler wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:29:53 +0100, "George Dishman"
> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:1155751832.337573.312830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >> Igor wrote:
> >>> Robert Clark wrote:
> >>> > John Baez wrote:
> >>> > > In article <ebq1f4$2ap$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>,
> >...
> >>> > > http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1023641
> >>> > >
> >>> > > So, dark matter is looking real, and the question is: what is it?
> >>> >
> >>> > The aether.
> >>>
> >>> It's really too bad that no one explained to you that the aether
> >>> concept has been dead for over a hundred years. You might want to look
> >>> it up.
> >>
> >> If you read about the theories of modern physics, you find that EVERY
> >> one of them have a tenet that the true absolute vacuum still contains
> >> energy.
> >
> >But very few of them have a rigid crystalline substance
> >filling the whole of space through which matter passes
> >unimpeded and whose vibrations we perceive as light.
>
> The very fact that bodies move is proof that we are moving in an
> immense and highly energetic 4-D lattice of particles. Causality
> demands it. Why? Because every change (quantum jump) requires a cause
> and this cause is an interaction. Aristotle redux.
But there is no evidence that motion is quantized. Once you have
figured out how to experimentally test your notion that it is, let us
know.
Furthermore, every interaction that we know of so far involves a
*transfer* of momentum. If a particle moves with constant momentum from
place to place to place, there is no experimental evidence of momentum
transfer of any kind in that process. So now we need evidence of an
interaction that generates a displacement (the quantum displacement we
don't have evidence for) without generating a transfer of momentum.
When you build a quantitatively predictive model that accounts for such
an interaction, let us know.
So far, you're just babbling "it's obvious" about things that are not
at all obvious.
>
> The failure of the physics community to grasp something as fundamental
> (not to mention, simple) as the causality of movement will go down as
> one of the biggest blunders in the history of science, on a par with
> the flat earth hypothesis. Yeah, it's truly pathetic. ahahaha...
>
Not much time left, Traveler, to answer these questions a bit better
before you die. Better get to work.
PD
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Aug 2006 12:39:05
From: Traveler
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
On 17 Aug 2006 06:49:04 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>Traveler wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:29:53 +0100, "George Dishman"
>> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:1155751832.337573.312830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> >> Igor wrote:
>> >>> Robert Clark wrote:
>> >>> > John Baez wrote:
>> >>> > > In article <ebq1f4$2ap$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>,
>> >...
>> >>> > > http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1023641
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > So, dark matter is looking real, and the question is: what is it?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > The aether.
>> >>>
>> >>> It's really too bad that no one explained to you that the aether
>> >>> concept has been dead for over a hundred years. You might want to look
>> >>> it up.
>> >>
>> >> If you read about the theories of modern physics, you find that EVERY
>> >> one of them have a tenet that the true absolute vacuum still contains
>> >> energy.
>> >
>> >But very few of them have a rigid crystalline substance
>> >filling the whole of space through which matter passes
>> >unimpeded and whose vibrations we perceive as light.
>>
>> The very fact that bodies move is proof that we are moving in an
>> immense and highly energetic 4-D lattice of particles. Causality
>> demands it. Why? Because every change (quantum jump) requires a cause
>> and this cause is an interaction. Aristotle redux.
>
>But there is no evidence that motion is quantized.
There is no evidence that a photon actually travels the path between
an emitter and a detector either. We can only infer that it does.
> Once you have
>figured out how to experimentally test your notion that it is, let us
>know.
If you call yourself a physicist and you still cannot figure out that
nature is necessarily discrete, you are stupid as fuck. As I wrote
elsewhere, you should be tarred and feathered and your alma mater
deserves to be burned down to the ground. ahahaha... FYI, the universe
is discrete because a continuous (infinitely divisible) universe leads
to an infinite regress. As simple as that. That ass kissers like you
in the physics community cannot see it is a testament to your
stupidity or worse, your dishonesty.
>Furthermore, every interaction that we know of so far involves a
>*transfer* of momentum. If a particle moves with constant momentum from
>place to place to place, there is no experimental evidence of momentum
>transfer of any kind in that process. So now we need evidence of an
>interaction that generates a displacement (the quantum displacement we
>don't have evidence for) without generating a transfer of momentum.
>When you build a quantitatively predictive model that accounts for such
>an interaction, let us know.
Yeah right. ahahaha... Look moron, momentum is a property (or set of
properties) or state (or states) of a particle. It is a *passive*
property. It does not cause a positional jump any more than the mass
of a particle causes it to move. Momentum is merely an indicator or an
instruction for how a particle should move. A jump is an effect that
requires a cause and movement is not its own cause. The cause is
obvious to everyone who does not have shit for brains. It is an
interaction with another particle.
>So far, you're just babbling "it's obvious" about things that are not
>at all obvious.
So far, you're just kissing ass. ahahaha...
>> The failure of the physics community to grasp something as fundamental
>> (not to mention, simple) as the causality of movement will go down as
>> one of the biggest blunders in the history of science, on a par with
>> the flat earth hypothesis. Yeah, it's truly pathetic. ahahaha...
>>
>
>Not much time left, Traveler, to answer these questions a bit better
>before you die. Better get to work.
I've been working and I've made steady progress. That's how I know
you're all full of shit. ahahaha... I was naively hoping for a little
help from the physics experts. As it turns out, the experts are of no
help. They are, in fact, a hindrance, having shit for brains and being
all part of the same ass kissing cult. ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
|
| | |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 15:14:29
From: toc
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
Bill Hobba wrote:
> "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1155751832.337573.312830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> > Igor wrote:
> >> Robert Clark wrote:
> >> > John Baez wrote:
> >> > > In article <ebq1f4$2ap$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>,
> >> > > Arnold <Arnold@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >Astronomers who used NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory will host a
> >> > > >media teleconference at 1 p.m. EDT Monday, Aug. 21, to announce how
> >> > > >dark and normal matter have been forced apart in an extraordinarily
> >> > > >energetic collision.
> >> > >
> >> > > http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_M06128_dark_matter.html
> >> > >
> >> > > >Briefing participants:
> >> > > >- Maxim Markevitch, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
> >> > > >Astrophysics, Cambridge, Mass.
> >> > >
> >> > > Given the description and the presence of Maxim Markevitch, I bet
> >> > > this is about the Bullet Cluster 1E0657-56 - he talked about this
> >> > > at a conference last November:
> >> > >
> >> > > http://cxc.harvard.edu/symposium_2005/proceedings/theme_energy.html#abs23
> >> > >
> >> > > The Bullet Cluster consists of colliding galaxies where the gas
> >> > > crashed to a halt and got really hot, while the dark matter kept
> >> > > going straight through. Markevitch used the Chandra observatory
> >> > > to see X-rays from the hot gas. People can see the dark matter
> >> > > because its gravity bends the light from galaxies further back.
> >> > > And, they're not in the same place!
> >> > >
> >> > > Also last year, people found signs of a galaxy almost entirely
> >> > > made of dark matter:
> >> > >
> >> > > http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1023641
> >> > >
> >> > > So, dark matter is looking real, and the question is: what is it?
> >> >
> >> > The aether.
> >> >
> >> > - Bob Clark
> >>
> >> It's really too bad that no one explained to you that the aether
> >> concept has been dead for over a hundred years. You might want to look
> >> it up.
> >
> > If you read about the theories of modern physics, you find that EVERY
> > one of them have a tenet that the true absolute vacuum still contains
> > energy.
>
> But every single one of then obeys relativity
name one
> so does not define a rest
> frame.
>
> Bill
>
> >
> >
> > Bob Clark
> >
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 01:05:19
From: Bill Hobba
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
"toc" <ililililil@samerica.com > wrote in message
news:1155852869.552563.103740@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bill Hobba wrote:
>> "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1155751832.337573.312830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> > Igor wrote:
>> >> Robert Clark wrote:
>> >> > John Baez wrote:
>> >> > > In article <ebq1f4$2ap$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>,
>> >> > > Arnold <Arnold@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >Astronomers who used NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory will host a
>> >> > > >media teleconference at 1 p.m. EDT Monday, Aug. 21, to announce
>> >> > > >how
>> >> > > >dark and normal matter have been forced apart in an
>> >> > > >extraordinarily
>> >> > > >energetic collision.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_M06128_dark_matter.html
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >Briefing participants:
>> >> > > >- Maxim Markevitch, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center
>> >> > > >for
>> >> > > >Astrophysics, Cambridge, Mass.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Given the description and the presence of Maxim Markevitch, I bet
>> >> > > this is about the Bullet Cluster 1E0657-56 - he talked about this
>> >> > > at a conference last November:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > http://cxc.harvard.edu/symposium_2005/proceedings/theme_energy.html#abs23
>> >> > >
>> >> > > The Bullet Cluster consists of colliding galaxies where the gas
>> >> > > crashed to a halt and got really hot, while the dark matter kept
>> >> > > going straight through. Markevitch used the Chandra observatory
>> >> > > to see X-rays from the hot gas. People can see the dark matter
>> >> > > because its gravity bends the light from galaxies further back.
>> >> > > And, they're not in the same place!
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Also last year, people found signs of a galaxy almost entirely
>> >> > > made of dark matter:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1023641
>> >> > >
>> >> > > So, dark matter is looking real, and the question is: what is it?
>> >> >
>> >> > The aether.
>> >> >
>> >> > - Bob Clark
>> >>
>> >> It's really too bad that no one explained to you that the aether
>> >> concept has been dead for over a hundred years. You might want to
>> >> look
>> >> it up.
>> >
>> > If you read about the theories of modern physics, you find that EVERY
>> > one of them have a tenet that the true absolute vacuum still contains
>> > energy.
>>
>> But every single one of then obeys relativity
>
> name one
The quantum vacuum.
Bill
>
>> so does not define a rest
>> frame.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Bob Clark
>> >
>
|
| | |
Date: 20 Aug 2006 21:44:09
From: Y.Porat
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
Traveler wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2006 06:49:04 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Traveler wrote:
> >> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:29:53 +0100, "George Dishman"
> >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:1155751832.337573.312830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> Igor wrote:
> >> >>> Robert Clark wrote:
> >> >>> > John Baez wrote:
> >> >>> > > In article <ebq1f4$2ap$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>,
> >> >...
> >> >>> > > http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1023641
> >> >>> > >
> >> >>> > > So, dark matter is looking real, and the question is: what is it?
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > The aether.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> It's really too bad that no one explained to you that the aether
> >> >>> concept has been dead for over a hundred years. You might want to look
> >> >>> it up.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you read about the theories of modern physics, you find that EVERY
> >> >> one of them have a tenet that the true absolute vacuum still contains
> >> >> energy.
> >> >
> >> >But very few of them have a rigid crystalline substance
> >> >filling the whole of space through which matter passes
> >> >unimpeded and whose vibrations we perceive as light.
> >>
> >> The very fact that bodies move is proof that we are moving in an
> >> immense and highly energetic 4-D lattice of particles. Causality
> >> demands it. Why? Because every change (quantum jump) requires a cause
> >> and this cause is an interaction. Aristotle redux.
> >
> >But there is no evidence that motion is quantized.
>
> There is no evidence that a photon actually travels the path between
> an emitter and a detector either. We can only infer that it does.
>
> > Once you have
> >figured out how to experimentally test your notion that it is, let us
> >know.
>
> If you call yourself a physicist and you still cannot figure out that
> nature is necessarily discrete, you are stupid as fuck. As I wrote
> elsewhere, you should be tarred and feathered and your alma mater
> deserves to be burned down to the ground. ahahaha... FYI, the universe
> is discrete because a continuous (infinitely divisible) universe leads
> to an infinite regress. As simple as that. That ass kissers like you
> in the physics community cannot see it is a testament to your
> stupidity or worse, your dishonesty.
>
> >Furthermore, every interaction that we know of so far involves a
> >*transfer* of momentum. If a particle moves with constant momentum from
> >place to place to place, there is no experimental evidence of momentum
> >transfer of any kind in that process. So now we need evidence of an
> >interaction that generates a displacement (the quantum displacement we
> >don't have evidence for) without generating a transfer of momentum.
> >When you build a quantitatively predictive model that accounts for such
> >an interaction, let us know.
>
> Yeah right. ahahaha... Look moron, momentum is a property (or set of
> properties) or state (or states) of a particle. It is a *passive*
> property. It does not cause a positional jump any more than the mass
> of a particle causes it to move. Momentum is merely an indicator or an
> instruction for how a particle should move. A jump is an effect that
> requires a cause and movement is not its own cause. The cause is
> obvious to everyone who does not have shit for brains. It is an
> interaction with another particle.
>
> >So far, you're just babbling "it's obvious" about things that are not
> >at all obvious.
>
> So far, you're just kissing ass. ahahaha...
>
> >> The failure of the physics community to grasp something as fundamental
> >> (not to mention, simple) as the causality of movement will go down as
> >> one of the biggest blunders in the history of science, on a par with
> >> the flat earth hypothesis. Yeah, it's truly pathetic. ahahaha...
> >>
> >
> >Not much time left, Traveler, to answer these questions a bit better
> >before you die. Better get to work.
>
> I've been working and I've made steady progress. That's how I know
> you're all full of shit. ahahaha... I was naively hoping for a little
> help from the physics experts. As it turns out, the experts are of no
> help. They are, in fact, a hindrance, having shit for brains and being
> all part of the same ass kissing cult. ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
> ahahaha...
>
> Louis Savain
>
--------------------------------
no Aether and no shmaether
no photons ans no shmotons
dark matter cannot be photons because photons move in stright lines
anything that moves in stright lines will be lost forever in the
endless space
it must be only a very basic particle that moves naturally in closed
circles
see the Circlon'
a basic particle that moves naturally in a closed circle (untill
disturbed
in its path and then recoiles backwards in a reverse path)
it is much more basic than th ephoton
it i sthe mother of photons
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------------
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 11:56:38
From: Traveler
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
On 20 Aug 2006 21:44:09 -0700, "Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il > wrote:
>no Aether and no shmaether
>
>no photons ans no shmotons
>dark matter cannot be photons because photons move in stright lines
>anything that moves in stright lines will be lost forever in the
>endless space
A photon, like every other particle, require a cause to move (deny at
your own detriment). That is, every quantum jump a photon makes must
be caused by an interaction. The lattice of photons we are moving in
is initially at rest because the photons have nothing to interact
with. Once a photon begins moving (due to an interaction with a
particle), it keeps on moving because it finds other photons in the
lattice to interact with. Dismiss if you're an idiot. ahahaha...
[your Circlon crap deleted, ahahaha...]
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 22:20:34
From: Max Keon
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
"John Baez" <baez@math.UUCP > wrote in message
news:ebuoq7$5ih$1@glue.ucr.edu...
> In article <ebq1f4$2ap$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>,
> In article <ebq1f4$2ap$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>,
> Arnold <Arnold@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>Astronomers who used NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory will host a
>>media teleconference at 1 p.m. EDT Monday, Aug. 21, to announce how
>>dark and normal matter have been forced apart in an extraordinarily
>>energetic collision.
> http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_M06128_dark_matter.html
>>Briefing participants:
>>- Maxim Markevitch, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
>>Astrophysics, Cambridge, Mass.
> Given the description and the presence of Maxim Markevitch, I bet
> this is about the Bullet Cluster 1E0657-56 - he talked about this
> at a conference last November:
>
> http://cxc.harvard.edu/symposium_2005/proceedings/theme_energy.html#abs23
>
> The Bullet Cluster consists of colliding galaxies where the gas
> crashed to a halt and got really hot, while the dark matter kept
> going straight through. Markevitch used the Chandra observatory
> to see X-rays from the hot gas. People can see the dark matter
> because its gravity bends the light from galaxies further back.
> And, they're not in the same place!
>
> Also last year, people found signs of a galaxy almost entirely
> made of dark matter:
>
> http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1023641
>
> So, dark matter is looking real, and the question is: what is it?
That's easy. This is an extract from
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/the1-1a.html
-------
Note: Evidence indicates that electrons and positrons are point
sized. They have no physical dimensions.
When an Electron and Positron fall into orbit around each other,
the charge dipole of their separation would naturally remain very
apparent in the outside world until the entire energy of their
separation is removed. The dipole oscillation rate must increase
to instantaneous (relative to the existence rate) when the two
finally come together in the same point, at which time the charge
dipole length is zero. The only possible indicator that would reveal
their hiding place is the very minute distortion of space caused by
their presence. One could call them invisible matter, or something.
Momentum increases as orbit radius decreases. The momentum gained
by the time they both come together in the same point should add
up to be the equivalent of their combined masses. But the energy
of their separation had previously existed as potential energy. That
has now been converted to E/M energy. Put the E/M energy back and
the pair are again separated (as is observed). *****All energy has
been accounted for in each action. So how can the energy equivalent
of their masses be removed and replaced twice over in each action
*****?
------
An electron-positron pair cannot possibly be completely removed
from existence when they "annihilate" because there is no residual
mechanism that could return them back to existence again. The only
E/M energy that could contain a genetic string which could possibly
know the exact makeup of the electron and positron, has long gone.
So what determines the **exact** E/M absorption cutoff point for
the regeneration of the pair? How does E/M radiation know what an
electron looks like?
Electrons and positrons are here for all eternity. And everything
that is "you" is going along for the ride as well. And there's no
way out.
Perhaps we should get our act together.
-----
Max Keon
|
| | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 09:10:32
From: John Carruthers
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
Traveler wrote:
> On 20 Aug 2006 21:44:09 -0700, "Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote:
>
> >no Aether and no shmaether
> >
> >no photons ans no shmotons
> >dark matter cannot be photons because photons move in stright lines
> >anything that moves in stright lines will be lost forever in the
> >endless space
>
> A photon, like every other particle, require a cause to move (deny at
> your own detriment). That is, every quantum jump a photon makes must
> be caused by an interaction. The lattice of photons we are moving in
> is initially at rest because the photons have nothing to interact
> with. Once a photon begins moving (due to an interaction with a
> particle), it keeps on moving because it finds other photons in the
> lattice to interact with. Dismiss if you're an idiot. ahahaha...
>
> [your Circlon crap deleted, ahahaha...]
>
> Louis Savain
>
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
> http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
So the spontaneous decay of particles from a higher state to a lower
state, (emitting a photon) does not happen ?
Laser manufacturers will be pleased to know this, you should tell them
they don't need to pump lasers any more.
jc
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 13:00:30
From: Traveler
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
On 23 Aug 2006 09:10:32 -0700, "John Carruthers"
<joncarruthers@hotmail.com > wrote:
>
>Traveler wrote:
>> On 20 Aug 2006 21:44:09 -0700, "Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote:
>>
>> >no Aether and no shmaether
>> >
>> >no photons ans no shmotons
>> >dark matter cannot be photons because photons move in stright lines
>> >anything that moves in stright lines will be lost forever in the
>> >endless space
>>
>> A photon, like every other particle, require a cause to move (deny at
>> your own detriment). That is, every quantum jump a photon makes must
>> be caused by an interaction. The lattice of photons we are moving in
>> is initially at rest because the photons have nothing to interact
>> with. Once a photon begins moving (due to an interaction with a
>> particle), it keeps on moving because it finds other photons in the
>> lattice to interact with. Dismiss if you're an idiot. ahahaha...
>>
>> [your Circlon crap deleted, ahahaha...]
>>
>> Louis Savain
>>
>> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
>> http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
>
>So the spontaneous decay of particles from a higher state to a lower
>state, (emitting a photon) does not happen ?
>Laser manufacturers will be pleased to know this, you should tell them
>they don't need to pump lasers any more.
>jc
Fuck you, asshole. ahahaha... Don't you dare put words in my mouth.
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 01:21:50
From: Henry Haapalainen
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
"John Carruthers" <joncarruthers@hotmail.com > kirjoitti
viestissä:1156349432.821362.312450@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Traveler wrote:
>> On 20 Aug 2006 21:44:09 -0700, "Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote:
>>
>> >no Aether and no shmaether
>> >
>> >no photons ans no shmotons
>> >dark matter cannot be photons because photons move in stright lines
>> >anything that moves in stright lines will be lost forever in the
>> >endless space
>>
>> A photon, like every other particle, require a cause to move (deny at
>> your own detriment). That is, every quantum jump a photon makes must
>> be caused by an interaction. The lattice of photons we are moving in
>> is initially at rest because the photons have nothing to interact
>> with. Once a photon begins moving (due to an interaction with a
>> particle), it keeps on moving because it finds other photons in the
>> lattice to interact with. Dismiss if you're an idiot. ahahaha...
>>
>> [your Circlon crap deleted, ahahaha...]
>>
>> Louis Savain
>>
>> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
>> http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
>
> So the spontaneous decay of particles from a higher state to a lower
> state, (emitting a photon) does not happen ?
> Laser manufacturers will be pleased to know this, you should tell them
> they don't need to pump lasers any more.
> jc
The states of electrons are oldfashioned physics. And laser has nothing to
with them.
Henry Haapalainen
|
| | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 09:07:45
From: Randy Poe
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
iitaspirant2009 wrote:
> i believe, dark matter and anti matter are just hypothesis and not
> theories!
What do you think is the distinction?
A hypothesis in science is a theory that comes with calculations
and predictions.
- Randy
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 11:15:48
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
Randy Poe wrote:
> iitaspirant2009 wrote:
>> i believe, dark matter and anti matter are just hypothesis and not
>> theories!
>
> What do you think is the distinction?
>
> A hypothesis in science is a theory that comes with calculations
> and predictions.
Uh... you got that backwards.
--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
To reply take out your eye
|
| | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 07:44:52
From: George Dishman
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
iitaspirant2009 wrote:
> i believe, dark matter and anti matter are just hypothesis and not
> theories!
Anti-matter has been a production line commodity
for decades:
http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/factory/AM-factory00.html
George
|
| | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 07:23:40
From: Y.Porat
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
iitaspirant2009 wrote:
> i believe, dark matter and anti matter are just hypothesis and not
> theories!
------------------
anyway
i supose they are needed (???)
something is obviously badly missing in our knowlwedge
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------
|
| | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 07:18:14
From: iitaspirant2009
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
i believe, dark matter and anti matter are just hypothesis and not
theories!
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 22:10:52
From: Sjouke Burry
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
iitaspirant2009 wrote:
> i believe, dark matter and anti matter are just hypothesis and not
> theories!
>
Antimatter has been produced in the lab(single atoms/particles only).
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 10:56:47
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
iitaspirant2009 wrote:
> i believe, dark matter and anti matter are just hypothesis and not
> theories!
Is that a hypothesis of yours, or a theory?
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 10:21:45
From: Randy Poe
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
Greg Crinklaw wrote:
> Randy Poe wrote:
> > iitaspirant2009 wrote:
> >> i believe, dark matter and anti matter are just hypothesis and not
> >> theories!
> >
> > What do you think is the distinction?
> >
> > A hypothesis in science is a theory that comes with calculations
> > and predictions.
>
> Uh... you got that backwards.
Let me try to amplify that, since it was meant to be
bi-directional:
When you form a hypothesis/theory in science, you come
up with calculations and predictions.
I don't see a distinction between the two.
- Randy
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 11:59:35
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
Randy Poe wrote:
> Greg Crinklaw wrote:
>> Randy Poe wrote:
>>> iitaspirant2009 wrote:
>>>> i believe, dark matter and anti matter are just hypothesis and not
>>>> theories!
>>> What do you think is the distinction?
>>>
>>> A hypothesis in science is a theory that comes with calculations
>>> and predictions.
>
>> Uh... you got that backwards.
>
> Let me try to amplify that, since it was meant to be
> bi-directional:
>
> When you form a hypothesis/theory in science, you come
> up with calculations and predictions.
>
> I don't see a distinction between the two.
From the dictionary.
Hypothesis:
1. A *tentative* explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or
scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or
investigation; an assumption.
Theory:
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts
or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is
widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Unfortunately, even though the word theory is defined this way in most
dictionaries, many non-scientists insist on using the word "theory" as a
synonym for "hypothesis". This is not in fact the case. This is a sore
point for most scientists because the mistaken idea that a theory is
merely a hypothesis is often employed by proponents of pseudo science
(such as "Intelligent Design.")
Think of it this way: astronomers refer to the idea that the Earth
orbits the Sun as the "Heliocentric Theory" of the Solar System, which
clearly is not conjectural or a mere hypothesis. A theory is, in fact,
nearly the opposite of a hypothesis.
To use your parlance, a hypothesis becomes a theory only after you come
up with the calculations and predictions.
So in order to be correct, one should say what you said the other way
around: "A theory in science is a hypothesis that comes with
calculations and predictions."
--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
To reply take out your eye
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 10:54:25
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
Randy Poe wrote:
> When you form a hypothesis/theory in science, you come
> up with calculations and predictions.
>
> I don't see a distinction between the two.
Perhaps you don't, but that is not how those terms are actually used by
scientists *when doing science*.
A *hypothesis* is merely a testable assertion. You can think of it as a
yes or no question. "When I turn on the shower, will the shower curtain
move inward toward the stream?" The assertion that it will is a simple
hypothesis. There are, of course, more complicated ones, such as the
hypothesis that high school boys form loose associations, whereas high
school girls form tight cliques, or the hypothesis that non-baryonic
matter is responsible for the anomalously rapid motion of galaxies
within clusters.
You may have heard the notion that nothing in science can be proven,
it can only be disproved. That's oversimplified--existential statements
of course can be proven--but it does drive how science is done. In the
case of the shower curtain, you're making an implicit generalization--
that the shower curtain will always move inward toward the stream of
water. Therefore, the hypothesis can only be falsified--you can never
show that it will always happen.
Eventually, though, after you do it enough times, you have confidence
that it will always happen. Furthermore, you observe and establish that
similar situations yield similar results: tissue paper held close to a
moving stream of air cleaves to the stream of air, floating bodies move
toward the center of a river if that part of the river moves more
rapidly, and so forth. The hypothesis can now be elevated to the status
of *theory*.
Strictly speaking, the theory is still a testable assertion, so it can
still be called a hypothesis. However, in practice, the terms are used
distinctly. In order to be called a theory, it must generally satisfy
two conditions. First, it must be established so firmly that its truth
becomes a foundation for future hypothesis. There are no hard and fast
rules for when this happens, but at some point, scientists simply begin
basing future experiments on the assumption that the theory holds.
Secondly, it must unify many different phenomena. It should explain not
only a variety of other observations, but it should also predict what
should happen in experiments which happen not to have conducted yet. It
may even explain occurrences which, until the theory was formulated, did
not seem related to those phenomena which inspired the theory. That is
a property of science that is often overlooked by the general public
(and possibly by many scientists, too)--that it helps us to understand
natural phenomena in terms of other natural phenomena.
Note that this is quite different from the way the word "theory" is used
in everyday conversation, where it means something looser--a guess, sort
of like how "hypothesis" is used scientifically, but without requiring
even that it be testable. You might hear someone say, "I have a theory
that he thinks about sex all the time." It's not clear that you can
test this objectively. (Although maybe we're talking about *you*. Now
*you're* thinking about sex, aren't you?) Problems sometimes start when
scientists uses the term "theory" in this more casual sense, because
they are human, too (really), and they occasionally are asked to speak
ordinary English.
If a theory can be very simply formulated, especially algebraically, it
is often called a law. Newton's second law of motion, F = ma (or more
precisely, F = m dv/dt) is an example of this. It is really a theory,
in the scientific sense, and some people have even suggested changes to
it to explain a variety of anomalous motion (not just that of galaxies).
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 18:18:20
From:
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
In article <eci4oh$1ma$1@praesepe.isi.edu >, brian@isi.edu (Brian Tung) writes:
>Randy Poe wrote:
>> When you form a hypothesis/theory in science, you come
>> up with calculations and predictions.
>>
>> I don't see a distinction between the two.
>
>Perhaps you don't, but that is not how those terms are actually used by
>scientists *when doing science*.
>
>A *hypothesis* is merely a testable assertion. You can think of it as a
>yes or no question. "When I turn on the shower, will the shower curtain
>move inward toward the stream?" The assertion that it will is a simple
>hypothesis. There are, of course, more complicated ones, such as the
>hypothesis that high school boys form loose associations, whereas high
>school girls form tight cliques, or the hypothesis that non-baryonic
>matter is responsible for the anomalously rapid motion of galaxies
>within clusters.
>
>You may have heard the notion that nothing in science can be proven,
>it can only be disproved. That's oversimplified--existential statements
>of course can be proven--but it does drive how science is done. In the
>case of the shower curtain, you're making an implicit generalization--
>that the shower curtain will always move inward toward the stream of
>water. Therefore, the hypothesis can only be falsified--you can never
>show that it will always happen.
>
>Eventually, though, after you do it enough times, you have confidence
>that it will always happen. Furthermore, you observe and establish that
>similar situations yield similar results: tissue paper held close to a
>moving stream of air cleaves to the stream of air, floating bodies move
>toward the center of a river if that part of the river moves more
>rapidly, and so forth. The hypothesis can now be elevated to the status
>of *theory*.
>
>Strictly speaking, the theory is still a testable assertion, so it can
>still be called a hypothesis. However, in practice, the terms are used
>distinctly. In order to be called a theory, it must generally satisfy
>two conditions. First, it must be established so firmly that its truth
>becomes a foundation for future hypothesis. There are no hard and fast
>rules for when this happens, but at some point, scientists simply begin
>basing future experiments on the assumption that the theory holds.
>
>Secondly, it must unify many different phenomena. It should explain not
>only a variety of other observations, but it should also predict what
>should happen in experiments which happen not to have conducted yet. It
>may even explain occurrences which, until the theory was formulated, did
>not seem related to those phenomena which inspired the theory. That is
>a property of science that is often overlooked by the general public
>(and possibly by many scientists, too)--that it helps us to understand
>natural phenomena in terms of other natural phenomena.
>
>Note that this is quite different from the way the word "theory" is used
>in everyday conversation, where it means something looser--a guess, sort
>of like how "hypothesis" is used scientifically, but without requiring
>even that it be testable. You might hear someone say, "I have a theory
>that he thinks about sex all the time." It's not clear that you can
>test this objectively. (Although maybe we're talking about *you*. Now
>*you're* thinking about sex, aren't you?) Problems sometimes start when
>scientists uses the term "theory" in this more casual sense, because
>they are human, too (really), and they occasionally are asked to speak
>ordinary English.
>
>If a theory can be very simply formulated, especially algebraically, it
>is often called a law. Newton's second law of motion, F = ma (or more
>precisely, F = m dv/dt) is an example of this. It is really a theory,
>in the scientific sense, and some people have even suggested changes to
>it to explain a variety of anomalous motion (not just that of galaxies).
Note that usually a theory encompasses more than a single law. A
proper example of a scientific theory will be Newtonian mechanics (all
of it, as a body), the Electromagnetic Theory, quantum mechanics,
relativity, and so on. A comprehensive body of knowledge including
numerous pieces which can be termed "laws".
Mati Meron
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 10:19:56
From: Richard Schultz
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
In sci.physics.particle Randy Poe <poespam-trap@yahoo.com > wrote:
: When you form a hypothesis/theory in science, you come
: up with calculations and predictions.
:
: I don't see a distinction between the two.
A hypothesis is a conjecture that is then subjected to test. A theory
is an explanation for a body of observations. Thus, Newton's Theory
of Gravity was one explanation, which was eventually superseded by
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
People who do not realize that there is a very big difference between
a "hypothesis" and a "theory" are the sort of people who think that one
can dismiss evolution because it's "only a theory."
-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 21:15:34
From: Y.Porat
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
vergon@gawab.com wrote:
> > >
> > --------------------------------
> > no Aether and no shmaether
> >
> > no photons ans no shmotons
> > dark matter cannot be photons because photons move in stright lines
> > anything that moves in stright lines will be lost forever in the
> > endless space
> >
> > it must be only a very basic particle that moves naturally in closed
> > circles
> >
> > see the Circlon'
> > a basic particle that moves naturally in a closed circle (untill
> > disturbed
> > in its path and then recoiles backwards in a reverse path)
> >
> > it is much more basic than th ephoton
> > it i sthe mother of photons
> >
> > ATB
> > Y.Porat
> > -----------------------------------------
>
> Vergon
>
> As usual you are way off. "... photons move in straight lines ... and
> will be lost forever."
----------------------------
comon Vert
did you decided to be my enemy ??
if yes you will have another enemy !!!
did i said that photons are the cuase of attraction??
quite the opposite!!!!
i was the first one that said that phtons cannot be the cause of
attraction
i said it*** before you ***and yopu use my claim without mensioning me
as
copyrighter !!!
if photons were the cause of any attraction than matter in our universe
would be
deplited during the existance of our galaxy
there fore iintruduced the Circlon tha tmoves naturally in a closed
circle
and that is why our matter is not depleated
because even if it does not 'hit any target' it still stayes around
and is not getting lost
so just think and check things before you write anything against me
and for me the circlon is themother of photons
it moves as a hellix ** in stright lines* and there you have the
photon
got it ???
it is a combination of circualr and stright line movement
a circlon can move in a circle
but the plan of that circular movement can move additionally in a
stright line!!
it is too difficult fo ryou toget it ???
if too disfficult than sorry for you . tray again .to understand it
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 10:30:07
From:
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
> >
> --------------------------------
> no Aether and no shmaether
>
> no photons ans no shmotons
> dark matter cannot be photons because photons move in stright lines
> anything that moves in stright lines will be lost forever in the
> endless space
>
> it must be only a very basic particle that moves naturally in closed
> circles
>
> see the Circlon'
> a basic particle that moves naturally in a closed circle (untill
> disturbed
> in its path and then recoiles backwards in a reverse path)
>
> it is much more basic than th ephoton
> it i sthe mother of photons
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> -----------------------------------------
Vergon
As usual you are way off. "... photons move in straight lines ... and
will be lost forever."
Doesn't it occur to you that photons will always fill the universe
BECAUSE STARS STILL SHINE?
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 10:29:53
From:
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
> >
> --------------------------------
> no Aether and no shmaether
>
> no photons ans no shmotons
> dark matter cannot be photons because photons move in stright lines
> anything that moves in stright lines will be lost forever in the
> endless space
>
> it must be only a very basic particle that moves naturally in closed
> circles
>
> see the Circlon'
> a basic particle that moves naturally in a closed circle (untill
> disturbed
> in its path and then recoiles backwards in a reverse path)
>
> it is much more basic than th ephoton
> it i sthe mother of photons
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> -----------------------------------------
Vergon
As usual you are way off. "... photons move in straight lines ... and
will be lost forever."
Doesn't it occur to you that photons will always fill the universe
BECAUSE STARS STILL SHINE?
|
| |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 04:34:21
From: Harold Mada
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
This could be fun! I'm waitin for the announcement that:
GEORGE BUSH IS A PLANET - BUT DOES NOT EXIST!
Arnold wrote:
> Aug. 14, 2006
>
> Erica Hupp/Dwayne Brown
> Headquarters, Washington
> 202-358-1237/1726
>
> Megan Watzke
> Chandra X-ray Center, Cambridge, Mass.
> 617-496-7998
>
> MEDIA ADVISORY: M06-128
>
> NASA ANNOUNCES DARK MATTER DISCOVERY
>
> Astronomers who used NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory will host a
> media teleconference at 1 p.m. EDT Monday, Aug. 21, to announce how
> dark and normal matter have been forced apart in an extraordinarily
> energetic collision.
>
> Reporters must call Megan Watzke at the Chandra Press Office at: 617-
> 496-7998 or e-mail: mwatzke@cfa.harvard.edu for participation
> information. Shortly before the start of the briefing, images and
> graphics about the research will be posted at:
>
> http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/1e0657/
>
> Briefing participants:
> - Maxim Markevitch, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
> Astrophysics, Cambridge, Mass.
> - Doug Clowe, postdoral fellow, University of Arizona, Tucson,
> Ariz.
> - Sean Carroll, assistant professor of physics, University of Chicago,
> Ill.
>
> A video file about the discovery will air on NASA TV at noon, Aug. 21.
> Audio of the event will be streamed live on the Web at:
> http://www.nasa.gov/newsaudio. For NASA TV streaming video, schedule
> and downlink information, visit:
>
> http://www.nasa.gov/ntv
>
> For information about NASA and agency programs, visit:
>
> http://www.nasa.gov/home
>
>
> --
> 25° 45' S
> 28° 12' E
> GMT+2
>
> Join the Planetary Society
> http://www.planetary.org
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2006 07:52:29
From: Rob
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Marco Licetti wrote:
> > I dsicovered it long ago in my ass
> >
> >
>
> Try drinking more milk!
Hmmm, must have had his head where the light never shines.
|
|
