"Dark matter is interesting. Basically, the Universe is heavier than it should be. There's whole swathes of stuff we can't account for." -Talulah Riley
One of the most puzzling facts about the Universe is that 95% of the energy in it, in the forms of dark matter and dark energy, are completely invisible, and have never been directly detected. Perhaps, the story goes, it’s our theory of gravity that’s to blame, rather than needing new components in the Universe. While dark matter and dark energy can explain a whole slew of observations, gravity modifications do a better job of explaining galactic rotation, but require altering Einstein’s theory of gravity.
But merging neutron stars provide a unique test: electromagnetic and gravitational waves both originate from an ultra-distant source over 100 million light years away. The first signals arrive separated by mere seconds, allowing us to constrain models where gravity and light are bent (and delayed) differently by the presence of masses. While theories like Bekenstein’s TeVeS and Moffat’s Scalar-Tensor-Vector predict differing delays by years, the observed arrival time difference was just 1.7s.
With these new observations, models that attempt to do away with dark matter and dark energy are largely busted, leaving only contrived, non-local modified gravity theories behind. It’s an incredible victory for Einstein and the dark Universe.
- Log in to post comments
There is evidence of the strongly interacting dark matter every time a double slit experiment is performed, as it is the dark matter that waves.
My guess is Dark Matter made of a particle (could it be graviton?).
And I don't think Dark Energy is a limitless form of energy keep getting created by spacetime itself, because it would go against conservation of energy (not to mention conservation of information). So it must be either a limited energy source (inside the Universe) that leftover from The Big Bang, or it maybe (negative) energy that our Universe is pulling in from outside (of the Universe).
All you have to do is...FIRST actually find some dark matter and energy, THEN things are going great.
Right now all you have is an empty black box place holder that you are ascribing phenomena to...which is not so great.
The way it works is... if we don't have a clue what causes something, we give it a name and pretend that now it's a known entity. Dress it up with math and, whaddaya know, it's "science."
Do you "believe in" electrons?
@Michael Mooney #4,
Exactly. I was about to say the same thing. This entire debate about DM/DE/MOND revolves around the fact they don't know if it is: A force (as the MOND group wants)
or if it is : Energy
or if it is : Matter
That kind of doesn't leave anything else it could possibly be, short of magic, it's like checking all the boxes on a multiple choice test and claiming you got the right answer.
I call it 'Empty placeholder science'.
When I call what I cant see or measure or understand 'X', and claim that despite this lack of information, X is directly responsible for Y, even though I'm not remotely sure what X even is to begin with, and then put it into an equation, I STILL know nothing about what X is, and I STILL have nothing to connect it to Y, other than 'because I said so'.
Let's get rid of 'Dark (insert useless noun)', which is evasive and misleading terminology, and call it "I don't know", which is to the point and entirely honest terminology.
@CFT #3: That's an excellent description! We are kind of at the point now where Newton and Huygens were in studying light. They both had very good experimental data, but completely different mechanisms for the underlying physics behind that data.
For "dark matter," we have lots of detailed, quantitative observations, from many different sources, which all converge on a common description which both "explains" those observations and predicts new ones (the frustrating black box).
But we don't yet have any demonstrated theory for what physical mechanism (particles, fields, macroscopic objects) is hiding inside that black box. So we are stuck with (a) continuing to make and catalogue detailed observations to hopefully infer some explanation; and (b) make "guesses" (models) of different possible mechanisms, designing experiments or observations which can test those mechanisms. My own work is in one of the many different areas of (b), building an experiment to look for both high and low mass "WIMPs", one of the many different "guesses" for what causes our observations of dark matter. It will probably turn out to be wrong (like most hypotheses in real science), but if you don't test it, you can't even say whether its wrong or not.
For people who like their science as "given from on high," with clear, simply expressed descriptions that everyone agrees on, this is an unpleasant place to be. The kind of new type of observation (a) we have from GW170817/GRB170817a is very useful in pruning away whole sections of the forest of (b). In a perfect world, eventually enough such observations will prune down that forest to just a few remaining trees.
I can't see air normally, but I can do all sorts of tests that can locate it, find out what it's made of, and directly interact with it by waving my hand.
I can't see electrons, but I sure can feel an electrical charge if I complete an electrical circuit, and I can measure electrical current as well, and predict certain properties about it.
We also don't fully understand electrons, despite knowing about their existence for quite some time. They may not actually do some of the things currently ascribed to them, as mainstream atomic models are sketchy.
I can't see dark matter/energy/ad nauseam. No known instrumentation can detect it. It has no measurable reactions to the entire EM spectrum that we are aware of, it 'theoretically' exists at all only because the math we use to describe gravitation can't explain certain observable discrepancies.
Where dark matter is concerned, presently all you have is 'belief'.
@CFT #6: I think that's a bit of an overstatement, at least for "dark matter" (I agree with you more on the "dark energy" front, but I still think you're over-generalizing).
Instead of "dark matter," would you be happier if we called it "unknown mass"? We have many, many independent observations, of entirely different classes of phenomena, all of which end up coming to a common conclusion: there is about five times more mass in any "large" (galaxy size or bigger) region of the Universe than we can detect electromagnetically.
You are quite right that (a) we have no freaking idea what this mass is, although we know definitively from one independent class of observations that it is NOT ordinary matter; and (b) different groups can "explain" different sets of observations in ways which don't invoke extra unknown mass.
The label "dark matter" is essentially there to identify the key feature of these observations: whatever it is, it doesn't interact electromagnetically, so we can't see it. But you're quite right about the annoying tendency, especially among theorists, to attach that "dark" prefix to things more or less unrelated to the actual observational puzzle.
So, that's a "no"? Otherwise, you're both intellectually dishonest and historically igorant. The "electron" had precisely the same status as dark matter that you're currently whinging about as not being "science" – a theoretical entity.
When your uncertainty reaches 50%, you are just guessing.
When your uncertainty reaches 95%, you are bullshitting.
^ Oh, right:
"We"? You're bad enough without invoking imaginary friends or plural minds, the latter of which are just as bad as everything else that's feeding your seemingly endless hemorrhoidal flare-up.
From the article: "When gravitational waves and photons (electromagnetic waves) pass through space, they're affected by the curvature and expansion of space in the exact same way."
I was under the impression that the curvature of space caused by the inspiral of these bodies WAS the gravitiational waves. May I ask where I've gone wrong in my understanding of the event?
Deflate thy ego just a tad, and stop conflating previous theoretical unknowns and claiming all of them are identical, they're not. 'Unknown' is not even the status of dark matter at this point, unknown can be corrected with an observation. Try 'UNDETECTABLE' instead, there is no way around that.
Contrary to your virtue signaling, I actually do know some science history.
With the discovery of the electron they didn't speculate for over 100 years about it, everything they were speculating about was also considered for experiment, tests were quickly designed to do so, and the results were measurable and repeatable, helping them to refine their models. They never went about (or even considered) proposing exotic 'undetectable' forms of matter or energy entirely outside of the realm of known nature to obscure or excuse the fact they couldn't locate or figure out how to account for discrepancies in their theories.
Long story short:
Electrons were never created to fudge predictive failures, they were discovered to be a constituent part of atoms through measureable, repeatable experimentation that was able to change pre-existing theory.
Dark Matter/Energy is just a black box excuse that was derived to account for a 95% predictive discrepancy in other theory the scientific community does not want changed.
It's a fudge factor.
@Elle. H.C. #11,
Many people are talking about DM/DE as being a form of theoretical backtracking into some variation of an Aether. Bee discusses this possibility on her site if you are interested.
Nah, I'm good.
It's just that there was a time, not so long ago, that aether-theories where taboo.
Sure the Michelson–Morley experiment dismissed the concept of an aether-wind, but it doesn't mean that all aether-models are completely flawed.
QM can't even fully describe a single electron, much less gravity, you angry twit. There's still a lot we don't know ('we' being 'humanity', which may or may not include your upset self).
Energy and matter are not and never have been probabilities, except as expressed in mathematical description only. Last I checked, nothing (including electrons) turns from an abstraction (such as a second hand calculation like a probability) into a thing and then back into an abstraction again. So no, I don't think we fully understand something we can't fully describe without resorting to outright reification.
Just read something interesting linked from Not Even Wrong. An essay written about what comes next for High Energy Physics, which directly or indirectly relates to the topic of Dark Matter and energy, depending on how you look at it.
Roughly paraphrased, science goes through three distinctive phases:
1.The phase of discovery.
2.The phase of consolidation.
3.The phase of Crisis.
These three steps play out over and over again through the history of all scientific endeavor. According to the author, Gian Francesco Giudice, in relation to the present state of the physics world, we are now in step 3.)The phase of crisis.
" outright reification."
Name it and claim it as a real entity. Apply math models for proof. Then call it science.
This is addressed to you, Ethan.
Ps: I really like the "Deathblow" reference in the title. Another victim on Ethan's Kill List of theories with which he disagrees!
As a disclaimer, I usually can't stand Sean Carroll's positions in physics, he has no qualms about eliding from math, to energy, to matter, and back again. He's also a fan of the 'many worlds' interpretation of QM, which isn't even testable science in my view. He does however point out something you may or may not be aware of, something that even caught him by surprise:
The physics community has no real agreement on the 'interpretation' of QM, it's all over the map. The most educated people in the subject do not agree what QM means, or which interpretation is closest to the truth:
So things are not in as much in agreement as some would like to believe about a theory over 80 years old that is pivotal in all of physics. The general public is often confused about a lot of science not because they are stupid, but because the experts aren't so sure either.
"Let’s get rid of ‘Dark (insert useless noun)’, which is evasive and misleading terminology, and call it “I don’t know”, which is to the point and entirely honest terminology."
Good Idea. How can we do that? Those with impressive credentials certifying their indoctrination into contemporary mainstream astrophysics and cosmology... even without the evidence required by the scientific method... well... they rule the new metaphysical version of science. (Not much for short sentences with periods.)
You can't even find one criticism of relativity accepted by Wikipedia's article on "Criticism of the Theory of Relativity!"
That is dogma, not science.
@Frank #2: Talking about conservation of energy becomes more complicated when you're trying to take the entire universe into account.
@Michael Mooney #23,
I think the idea of relativity is mostly correct, but that doesn't mean Einstein got it completely right, or even completed it. He certainly didn't think so, and said as much on numerous occasions, a view he held until his death, so I am amused when people get indignant about relativity being challenged as if it was a blasphemy against some kind of holy writ in stone. If history is a guide, most likely it will be corrected or changed at some point.
One problem with relativity it is that there is no velocity transform, to go from v to v'. The tensor math is also mostly a smoke screen just to make the math look edgy. I suspect Einstein was convinced to do this by some of his colleagues in order to dress his ideas up by shrouding them in complexity...an idea that is very popular to this day.
@Naked Bunny with a Whip #24:
I had read those before but still I have simpler views of my own.
I understand that energy conserved locally not necessarily mean it must be conserved globally. My view is there is no good reason to think why it shouldn't be conserved globally unless someday we have a clear evidence against it.
Keep in mind countless discoveries and solutions to problems in physics were because of assuming energy must be always conserved. That assumption never let us down before so why doubt it now?
In reality, even the things we think we know, we really don't understand on some fundamental level. All we can do is invent theory, and math, and experiment to determine which theories aren't ruled out yet.
So no, we don't know in some fundamental godlike sense what an electron is. We know it carries charge, and has mass and spin, and obeys probabilistic QM equations. But from that point on its just fancy math all the way down. We may know how to manipulate that math in very creative ways, but we still will never fully understand why it works.
Dear G-d, are you a Sad Sack.
I'm going to say this gently:
Something that is not needed to solve a problem is a waste of time and a unnecessary complexity, that's doing the reverse of what mathematics is supposed to do, winnow out the extraneous. A Minkowski metric is not needed to solve a general relativity problem, it's just being used to model a Euclidian space or flat spacetime anyway. If you really want to save yourself a lot of unneeded work, reverse all the gravity vectors in the problem. Consider it a working example of the equivalence principle, because that is what you are doing. Einstein did it this way himself, he even demonstrates it in 'Relativity' where he works out a problem this way using an elevator car in space. Doing it this way you remove the reason for doing all the tensor math entirely, it just isn't required in General Relativity, like I said before, it's a smokescreen. Try it both ways and decide for yourself.
I think I'm done with your snark Narad. It's time for you to move on and bother other people now.
Once again, you've gotten your ideas on the math wrong. Tensor math, while it may not be familiar or easy for you personally, is actually introduced as a simplification, rather than a complication. The fundamental idea of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same for all observers. Now, laws of physics generally are best described with mathematical equations. In general, if you write a mathematical equation, you must go through and check that this equation will apply to all possible observers (in technical terms, you must prove that the equation is invariant under coordinate transformations of certain types). Using tensors is just a way to make this job easier. Tensors are DEFINED to be invariant under the required coordinate transformations.
Short version: expressing the laws of physics in tensor equations guarantees that they will be the same for all possible observers, thus saving the work of proving this. It may be possible to write these equation in non-tensorial form, but doing so does NOT simplify things, it complicates them.
#29 - "Something that is not needed to solve a problem is a waste of time and a unnecessary complexity, ..."
What's funny about this is your habit of using 10 times more words than necessary. Remain calm and carry on...
Instead of telling me this for the choir, try the math the way I describe. If Einstein could do it that way by way of demonstration in his own book, I'm hard pressed to figure out why you think it's a bad idea.
@Alan G., I was going to leave the one liners to you, but whatever dude. yeah. cool. Like, like, Fer Shure.
Nonono. It's a conspiracy to obscure the 19th (18th?) century Twoof of which CFT is the standard bearer. Who was the guy who thought returning to quaternions would allow one to extract energy from driving past a fire hydrant? He was better than CFT. Hell, Gene Ray and the Time Cube were better than CFT.
^ Here we go (tinw).
How do you feel about unitary groups? Lorenz gauge? All a smokescreen to keep you from counting on your toes?
^ Almost forgot, but before I get down to real work:
CFT, which is more "real" in Maxwell's equations, E and B or A and φ? You may need to lick a 9 V battery before answering in a considered fashion.
"Dear G-d, are you a Sad Sack."
What a succinct, yet thorough, description of cft. Brilliant.
^^ I take it that nabla is some sort of blood libel.
I have no doubt that any problem can be solved in multiple ways. For the purpose of physics, though, a manifestly covariant equation is by far the simplest, most elegant, most relevant way to go. That would be the tensor math. It is the simplest form of problem solving for the purpose of the study of physics.
With any other formulation of problems in physics, you MUST confirm that your solution applies in reference frames other than the one that is considered during the process of solution. Otherwise, it's not a valid general solution to the problem. It is only a solution that is applicable in a specific reference frame. With the tensor formalism, this step is not necessary since tensors are defined in such a way as to guarantee that the equation is valid in all reference frames.
Maybe an analogy would make things more clear. Suppose you wanted to "prove" that the square of a number is equal to two times that number. Your method is analogous to saying, "let's consider the number zero. Zero squared equals zero, and two times zero is zero, so the formula holds. Maybe, zero's special. Let's try two. Two times two is four, and two squared is four. Aha! My formula works here too, so it must be generally applicable."
You have not proven anything in general, obviously. Any other value would obviously not hold in your formula. In like manner, if you solve a problem in physics without tensors, you have only proven a special case. With tensors, you can automatically prove general results. That's why tensors are used.
@CFT #25: "I think the idea of relativity is mostly correct..."
I beg to differ... well, not to beg, actually. No doubt the math of GR is an improvement over Newtonian physics for gravitational calculation. But when Einstein adopted Minkowski's model of spacetime curved by mass he made famous the reification of it as a malleable entity, not just a geometric model for the math. I still hope for evidence of an omnipresent field by which EVERYTHING is connected. That would dismiss the "problem" of "spooky action at a distance," for which "curved spacetime" was the intended remedy.
As for "special" relativity, surely you don't subscribe to the philosophy that physical objects and distances shrink, depending on the frame of reference from which they are observed. That is the most obvious difference between instrumentalism (a contemporary form of classical idealism) and scientific realism. There really is a physical world independent of differences among observers and their measurements. And "proper length" measured from at rest with the object is the valid description thereof. One traveling near c would need the Lorentz transform to correct for (possible) distortion when (if) planets and stars *appear* to be flattened. No, all frames of reference are not equally valid, and length does not vary with observational perspective.
Sean T, @30 wrote: " The fundamental idea of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same for all observers."
Rather, the laws of nature remain the same regardless of the observer. The job of physics is to accurately describe the laws of nature.
This is merely a demonstrably wrong statement of half-assed pseudophilosophy.
^ Before anyone starts, let me correct that to "clearly arguably wrong." This nonetheless requires a response that does not involve tantrums.
What is it about the proposition "entities exist independently of the perceptions of an observer" that you believe is “clearly arguably wrong.”
Perhaps before taking on that question, would you flesh out what you mean by “clearly arguably wrong”?
If you had been following MM's screeds, you would realize that this is just another way of saying, e.g., that time dilation isn't "real." It's a remarkable exercise in the epistemological rarity of Bad McPozzm.
@Michael Mooney #40,
I said I think relativity is mostly correct, and the need for transforms. I don't agree with all of it, or with some of its interpretations. I don't believe in spatial/time distortions as being actual as some do, I believe those are the consequences of viewing things from far away with a limiting factor of c, you need transforms to correct for these distortions if you are going to get a clear picture of what is on going from very far away traveling at very fast speeds. I believe how something appears from far away at relativistic speeds is not how things are there, just how they appear when viewed from my perspective.
This to me is fundamentally no different than any other optical illusion or visual distortion, I studied art and perspective once upon a time and I know there are a lot of ways you can exploit how the eye and the senses work to present the appearance of something that isn't actual. I know that when I look in a funhouse mirror, I'm not actually distorting, my reflection is. When I drive by a fence in my car, I know the fence isn't actually blurring, that is how it appears to me, and I accept that to someone standing by the fence it might be me that appears blurred to them from their perspective. When I look at the night sky, I also don't think I'm actually looking back in time, I'm just looking at a light that left it's source a very long time ago, no time warping was needed to explain it, just realization that while light seems instant at relatively close range, giving us the impression we are in the same moment as what we see, the reality is there is a delay which becomes ever more apparent the farther away something is. If I see you on the other side of a canyon, and I notice through my binoculars you are shouting something, and then your lips stop moving, and then I hear you faint voice echoing, I know this does not mean there is a time distortion, it means the light I am seeing you by travels much faster than the speed of the sound you made when you shouted creating the illusion that your lips and voice were not in sync. Had I been standing next to you, I would not have noticed any such illusion, your lips and voice would have been in perfect synch.
Even if I did agreed with you on something, I'd still say you are unsuited to explain jack, as you lack self control and are arrogant. Make your point without personal insults, or you don't have one.
The Earth is not a flat disc, even if you think it is. If you do think the world is round, your thinking it round is not what informs its shape. Reality exists independently of you, what you know about it and how accurately the knowledge describes it is another matter. Descartes existed, therefore he was able to think about it, not the other way around.
Is it, based upon your response above (currently #44), accurate/reasonable/fair to believe your opinion is that entities exist independently of the perceptions of an observer?
No, I reject ontology outright, but that's neither here nor there, as I accept methodological naturalism.
The irony, it burns. May I recall that you refused to address a perfectly coherent and detailed response by Michael Kelsey because you were suffering from a case of asshurt?
^ Ah, I have a reply to CFT in moderation, perhaps forever.* In the meantime, I might as well ask how his naive crude version of physics explains why fermions require a 720° rather than 360° rotation to get back to where they started.
* Maybe I'll redo it. Maybe not.
^^ Oh, right, Ethan for some reason only allows one link in a comment, rather than two.
So, based upon your "No" response above (currently #50), is it accurate/reasonable/fair to believe your opinion is that entities do not exist independently of the perceptions of an observer?
And yes, I believe the rule is only one link per comment.
Snazzm, yes. I sense that you might not be fully taking in the content of the comment you're referring to.
Based upon your “Snazzm, yes” response above (currently #54), what happens to an entity when your perception of it ends while it remains perceived by another observer?
Ok, now the Snazzm, yes” response is #55! :)
@John #56: "... what happens to an entity when your perception of it ends while it remains perceived by another observer?"
In fundamental idealism, every time you blink the world ceases to exist. But by the miracle of your personal observation, it comes back into existence when your lids are open to see it again.
What other observer? You're conflating philosophy with physics, which I explicitly disavowed.
You don't understand rejection of ontology, do you, MM?
"What other observer?" ... chuckling ... Ah! There is nothing except your mind right now - which is why this exchange isn't happening!
Feel free to explicitly disavow whatever you please, for doing so will change nothing.
No, you've confirmed that you don't understand what rejection of ontology means. "You are attached to names and forms," in the canonical literature. Whether you have a mind is your problem, and it has nothing whatever to do with physics.
^ Let me help: what's the reason for CPT invariance?
As I commented above, feel free to reject or disavow whatever you want. Doing so changes nothing. Idea exchanges occur during argument, not during denial, rejection, or disavowal.
Remember, this exchange isn’t happening. :)
No, you've again demonstrated that you're a philosophical primitivist. Would you care to say anything about the subject matter? It would be unfortunate if John from Baltimore were yet another sockpuppet for Travis Schwochert from Endeavor, Wisconsin.
How is that possible if this exchange ceases to exist when you are not looking at it? How can I be anything if I an not when you’re looking elsewhere?
Of course I am a sock puppet! I’m anything you imagine me to be .. or not!
"Transforms" of what? It can't be the metric, which you reject out of hand.
As I've said, that's your problem. Care to say anything about physics?
One postscript: where is mathematics? Is it in your head? No, wait... Is it in the Cosmic Mind? Where does it exist in the sense that you apparently can't express coherently?
I had written you off as a moron/ heckler but this almost made me "laugh out loud." (I was mildly amused.)
" Care to say anything about physics?"
I just shared a summary ( in a reply to CFT) of my criticisms of relativity (both GR and SR.)
Care to say anything besides personal insults about those criticisms?... Scientifically speaking, of course. !! This is an Inside joke. You seem unaware aware that you are just here for an adolescent dog fight for dominance. You don't know the language of impersonal scientific dialogue.
This blog is nearly dead, so let's just finish with radical honesty (Not the popular kind... tough love for addicts... sold in books... when you do a search on it.) Say it as you see it. Get over your adolescent attitude and speak science (impersonal) as this blog closes.
I already did reply to your comment, Mr. Reading Comprehension.
Math is wherever you want it to be, of course! And, when you’re not perceiving it, it doesn’t exist - or so you’ve suggested.
Feel free to disavow that if you wish.
No, you can defend platonism or put your half-witted metaphysics back in your pants and play with it there.
Remember, you’re the one who thinks that entities don’t exist independently of your perception of them.
Feel free to defend, or for that matter, disavow it. :)
It’s what you perceive that counts, right?
Wait, if it was the "transforms" one, you seem to have gotten some pseudonyms reversed.
^ Oh, no, it was "I still hope for evidence of an omnipresent field by which EVERYTHING is connected." Yup, more bad metaphysics. Have you three ever been seen in a room together?
What’s your perception of that? Or not, of course. ?
Where's Hilbert space, John?
By your criterion, wherever you perceive it to be, of course!
Endorsing Cartesian dualism – which is a form of supernaturalism – is nothing to be proud of, CFT.
... chuckling ... But solipsism of the present moment is?
Quoting CFT as this forum dies:
" Descartes existed, therefore he was able to think about it, not the other way around." Good one!
This cosmos existed, is existing and will exist totally independent of human or any other entitiy's observations, measurements, theories or ideologies (biases.)
Wannabe scientists, check your biases at the door. All others have a personal agenda. "god help us."
An unreasonable appeal to a metaphysical... beyond physics... omnipresent entity. There can be no proof of consciousness transcending the brain, let alone being the omnipresent field which is the universe in which we all live.
Personal testimony doesn't count in "science" today, because the liars (con artists) and delusional "witnesses" are still, I think, the vast majority.
That doesn't rule out legitimate accounts of unexplained phenomena. Science must be skeptical regarding "paranormal phenomena."
When (if) you experience a personal epiphany, don't try to explain it to "science." It doesn't have the "instruments" to detect or verify consciousness, let alone universal consciousness.
Thanks for the entertainment, Ethan. Seriously.
Narad, people who think math informs existence are already engaged in platonic mysticism, and that belief is held by a large percentage of mathematicians and physicists.
Strange that you have difficulty understanding that you had to exist prior to being able to insult people. If you believe causality to be metaphysical, then stop responding to what other people say and proving yourself wrong.
What is really strange is that SR is based on the false notion embodied in idealism... that reality depends on the testimony of various (theoretical) observers, i.e.,
The world does not exist independent of whatever observation of it, and it varies with the unique frame of reference.
Now it is dogma, not science, beyond criticism. (Check Wikipedia.)
Nearing THE END, but "It's not over 'til it's over."
@Michael Mooney #85,
I found a book that might interest you. I does cover quite a bit of the things we've discussed about the institution of education and how science is regarded among professionals.
The book is Disciplined Minds by Jeff Schmidt.
@Michael Mooney #85,
This is a link to a site that considers alternatives to Einstein's explanation of gravitational lensing. I myself question the mainstream interpretation of gravitational lensing, I suspect it could easily be caused by refraction and defraction of light through the edges of solar atmospheres. On a hot day, if you look at the hood of a car, you can see a distortion caused by light passing through the heated air near the surface of the car. If this much distortion is possible from warm air, imagine how much a stellar body could warp light passing through its super heated atmosphere? Just a thought to consider.
Thanks for the Disciplined Minds link and the video on refraction vs gravitational lensing. I'm quite sure that the mainstream indoctrinated majority here at SWAB will dismiss both without due consideration.
"Curved spacetime" is presently dogma beyond criticism. My favorite chapter title in the book is Chapter 4, Resisting Indoctrination. The irony is that the more thoroughly one is brainwashed the less one is aware of it... like those who actually accept that a" pancaked Earth" (as per SR) is an "equally valid" description of our beloved near-sphere home.
It has been good hanging with you, maybe the only one here with whom I consistently agree in opposition to the mainstream and their established dogmas-as-facts.
That sad truth is, the more one blindly accepts in the name of 'science', the more one believes in anything with a veneer of authority, and the less one questions for themselves what is going on in the world around them.
I do believe technocrats are the biggest threat to personal understanding and freedom the world presently faces.
Sadly, this is what Ethan advocates for.
a system of governance where decision-makers are selected on the basis of technological knowledge. Scientists, engineers, technologists, or experts in any field, would compose the governing body, instead of elected representatives."
How about Meritocracy, instead of Technocracy?
You really have no comprehension of philosophy whatever, do you? Monist materialism and monist idealism are at least mildly respectable. Dualism instantly collapses under its own weight.
I'm simply tossing the lot out the window, Chuckles. None of it is necessary.
Why would that be? Perhaps you're under the impression that you have to have some sort of noumenal existence in order to be insulted.
"Metaphysical"? There's obviously no metaphysics without ontology – again, that's your bad habit. It's like clowns out of Volkswagen with you three.
Well, what do you surmise is "going on in the world" around you? Who put it there? How does it work? Where does it come from? When does it occur? Why is all this happening to you?
Dear G-d, the Velikovskian/Electric Universe cranks? You've truly outdone yourself, CFT.
What? You think a "stellar body" can create an Einstein ring? This is doubly hilarious.
"I’m simply tossing the lot out the window..."
... smiling ... Sure. The baby with the bathwater.
"... None of it is necessary."
Neither is your solipsism of the present moment, which is what your affirmation (at #55), "Snazzm, yes" of my question "... is it accurate/reasonable/fair to believe your opinion is that entities do not exist independently of the perceptions of an observer?" is.
You see, when you renounce all except what your perception makes immediate, as you did at #55, you've renounced the basis upon which physics rests - that there is something other than what you perceive.
That's why I was surprised when you rejected at #50, the idea that entities exist independently of the perceptions of an observer?
Still, if you prefer to embrace the notion that entities do not exist independently of your perception, you're certainly entitled to that POV.
I suspect you'll find very few people who embrace Science to agree with you, but given your penchant for dismissing what you disagree with, I'm sure you'll be satisfied with your decision.
@ CFT #69:
" Scientists, engineers, technologists, or experts in any field, would compose the governing body, instead of elected representatives.”
You forgot mathematicians, all experts "out standing in their fields"... with their calculators.
Well, ... the "governing body" of physics (Elite academia... Granters of Phd's) does not allow criticism of relativity in any form, be it GR or SR.
That is my major complaint. "It depends on the observer" is not science. Neither is the invisible "Fabric of Spacetime." The greatest deception in science, still alive in the minds of Einstein's totally indoctrinated followers.
But which version will you believe? He changed his mind a lot, just like his (de-facto) successor, Hawking... as the most famous physicist!
I'll be gone from this pretense of unbiased science after tomorrow.
While it may be true that what I think are my comments addressed to you (ref here the "Narad," introduction of each) are in fact merely part of some strange dream you perceive you are having, I'm willing to wager that most people who read this exchange of comments will also think that I am not you, nor you me. Perhaps you'll think they too are part of your dream, and you may be comfortable with that.
However, they and I will think you are mistaken, about our non-existence, and your belief expressed at #55 of the non-existence of that which you do not perceive.
Good luck, my friend. You will need it.
" You think a “stellar body” can create an Einstein ring? This is doubly hilarious."
I would not have expected you to find reality "doubly hilarious", but you do have a special POV, and that perhaps aids your sense of humor.
"Hundreds of gravitational lenses are currently known. About half a dozen of them are partial Einstein rings with diameters up to an arcsecond, although as either the mass distribution of the lenses is not perfectly axially symmetrical, or the source, lens, and observer are not perfectly aligned, we have yet to see a perfect Einstein ring. Most rings have been discovered in the radio range. The degree of completeness needed for an image seen through a gravitational lens to qualify as an Einstein ring is yet to be defined."
Permit me to bring to your attention that an Einstein Ring is a special case of gravitational lensing, caused by the exact alignment of the source, lens, and observer. A black hole (BH) can serve as the lens.
You've left out the "stellar body" part, along with the analogy to a car hood, Peaches.
"You’ve left out the “stellar body” part ..."
You are mistaken to think that was important. In the theory of general relativity, a black hole could exist of any mass, while QM places the lower limit at the Planck mass.
For stellar mss black holes, follow the link below to learn from Ethan.
Perhaps you failed to read the comment I was responding to.
"I myself question the mainstream interpretation of gravitational lensing, I suspect it could easily be caused by refraction and defraction of light through the edges of solar atmospheres. On a hot day, if you look at the hood of a car, you can see a distortion caused by light passing through the heated air near the surface of the car. If this much distortion is possible from warm air, imagine how much a stellar body could warp light passing through its super heated atmosphere?"
My last word on relativity in a nutshell, repeated from #41:
Sean T, @30 wrote: ” The fundamental idea of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same for all observers.”
(The constantly repeated mantra of relativity.)
Rather, the laws of nature remain the same regardless of the observer. The job of physics is to accurately describe the laws of nature.
"Perhaps you failed to read the comment I was responding to."
That is, of course, irrelevant, as a stellar mass BH can effect the gravitational lensing which you find "doubly hilarious", but which you seemed unaware.
... chuckling ... You were responding to my comment #99 - until I pointed out your mistake. You had already responded at #94 to CFT about his post #87.
I note also that you have permitted to stand as stated, the comments in re solipsism of the present moment (ref here comment #55) which deny the basis upon which physics rests – that there is something other than what you perceive.
^ Thank goodness such "car hood" temperatures are not readily obtained in the laboratory.
Yes, you have permitted to stand as stated, the comments in re solipsism of the present moment (ref here comment #55) which deny the basis upon which physics rests – that there is something other than what you perceive.
We both know that the position you adopted at #55, that it accurate/reasonable/fair to believe your opinion is that entities do not exist independently of the perceptions of an observer, is untenable.
Why not admit you made a mistake and move on? Do you really want everyone who reads this thread to see you as claiming that entities do not exist independently of your perceptions?
You missed the part where I deny that I have a noumenal existence. Where in G-d's name did you get your education? It certainly didn't involve physics, philosophy, or world religions.
"Where in G-d’s name did you get your education? It certainly didn’t involve physics, philosophy, or world religions."
Feel free to introduce religion into the exchange. I won't respond to it.
As for your "I deny that I have a noumenal existence", yes your comments are often about what you deny. Feel free to deny whatever you wish; your denial will change nothing.
The position you adopted at #55, that it accurate/reasonable/fair to believe your opinion is that entities do not exist independently of the perceptions of an observer, is anti-science. I've called you out on it, and your posts indicate that you'll just repeat your denials.
It's right there at #55 for everyone to read in response to the inquiry if your opinion is that entities do not exist independently of the perceptions of an observer?
You can't make your comment go way - even if you deny it.
No, it's not. Apparently, you don't know the difference between ontology and science, hence my question where in G-d's name you might have purchased a university degree–shaped object.
Why would I want it to go away?
"No, it’s not.[anti-science]"
Actually, yes it is.
"Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."
The position you adopted at #55, that it accurate/reasonable/fair to believe your opinion is that entities do not exist independently of your perceptions denies the existence of the universe independent of you.
You remain mistaken.
"Why would I want it to go away? [#55]"
Because it affirms an anti-science POV (denial of the universe independent of you), which is at variance with how you have attempted to portray your position.
Now, perhaps you embrace self-contradiction in how you present your intellectual position to others.
If that is so, please let me know, and I'll leave you to enjoy that unusual approach to discourse.
@#116 "Nara" s/b "Narad"
Certainly, we in the scientific community will listen to any reasonable and intelligent criticism of relativity. The problem is that you have given none. You have simply shown your misunderstanding of it, but have not actually given any valid criticism of it.
The laws of nature are the same for all observers, right? (quoting you). One of those laws is that an anisotropic force will lead to a spherical object (approximate, assuming the anisotropy is also approximate). This leads to our correct conclusion that the earth is spherical in our reference frame. However, the moving observer measures an ISOTROPIC force of gravity. The force of gravity is GREATER along the axis of motion than it is in the perpendicular direction. The laws of nature don't change for this observer, so given a greater force in one direction than in another, what shape should that observer see?
We don't directly observe this, but suppose we look up in the sky with a REALLY good telescope, one much better than any currently built by orders of magnitude. We observe a planet. We find a way to measure the diameter of this planet along the axis perpendicular to our line of sight and also along our line of sight. We see this planet has a significantly shorter axis along the line of sight than along the perpendicular direction. What should we conclude? This is a perfectly valid description in our reference frame; how could it not be? We made the measurements. Obviously, SR leads us to conclude that the most likely case is that we are moving rapidly either toward or away from that planet and what we observe is the predicted length contraction in the direction of motion. The residents of that planet would, if they understood relativity, accept this as a valid description in our reference frame. The MM's on that planet would argue that we are of course being ridiculous and assure the MM on this planet that his measurements are obviously incorrect, despite all the care he took in making them.
How do you settle the question. Who's right and why? I understand you are a scientific realist, but how do you distinguish between the possibility that the true reality is that this planet is spherical and only appears to be flattened for moving observers and the alternate possibility that the true reality is that the planet is actually flattened and it is only the stationary observer to whom it appears to be spherical? The basic content of relativity is that such a distinction cannot be SCIENTIFICALLY made. If you want to make such a distinction, then that falls outside the purview of science and entails non-empirical means for making it.
BTW MM, one of those laws of nature that you agree is the same for all observers is that light in a vacuum travels at the speed c. This is the case regardless of the motion of the source or the observer. Once you accept the notion that the laws of nature are the same for ALL observers, relativity follows deductively. It's actually just a mathematical system with the axiom that the speed of light is the same for all observers. Deducing length contraction, time dilation, etc. is pretty easy mathematics once this principle is in place.
Sean T's point at #119 is well taken. If you accept the speed of massless particles through a vacuum is the constant c, it is difficult to avoid accepting Einstein's relativity.
Ooh, argumentum ad Wikipedium. I am duly impressed, except for the fact that you apparently can't even read what you quoted. Where's the ontology in there? You do know what this word means, right?
Frankly, I don't know what you're so uptight about. The last time I saw this kind of a routine, it was from a postmodernist I happened to be dating (and who also fancied Borges, of all people). The bonus here was that in one argument during which she was particularly vexed, she hissed at me, "I bet you believe in science."
Out of comity, I refrained from observing that she had no problem "believing" in flush toilets.
"At variance" how?
#121 - "Ooh, argumentum ad Wikipedium." ... chuckling ... Okay perhaps you'd prefer the OED: "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment" https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/science
Your comment #55 accepts "Snazzm, yes" that "entities do not exist independently of the perceptions of an observer" rejects the physical and natural world you do not perceive.
I'm sure you and your lady friend both believe there is a loo behind the closed door although neither of you can see (perceive) it without opening the door..
#122 - Perhaps you don't think denying the existence of tested entities when you are not perceiving them takes the edge off of your claimed methodological naturalism, but those who do think the universe exists independently of the observer might think otherwise.
e.g. entities x and y had to have been extant to test, and did exist to test, and remain extant for future tests.
Per your truth claim at #55, entities x and y did not exist prior to your perception (observation/test) or after.
If existence is merely the universe of entities (physical or otherwise) in your mind at a moment (solipsism), why can you not control this exchange, or any exchange, or every exchange by your thoughts?
Solipsism is unfalsifiable in the sense in which Karl Popper used the word: it is impossible to determine whether it is true or false. So I think your truth claim at #55 falls well short of being persuasive and that the solipsist position makes genuine communication impossible.
Yes, you seem to interject that frequently in lieu of saying something intelligent.
It's just more descriptivism, and has nothing whatever to do with the point.
Have you figured out what 'Snazzm' means yet?
"Takes the edge off"? This is word salad.
The deuce you say. Please explain how this works with entanglement.
What, pray tell, do you think a "truth claim" is? Even better, let's cut to the chase: Do you think the constancy of the personality is noumenally real, or purely phenomenological?
Jonho, that's finally an intelligent question. It's because "The Secret" is not Madhyamaka.
"It’s just more descriptivism"
"Have you figured out what ‘Snazzm’ means"
"This is word salad"
I doubted that you could go the distance with your solipsistic vision (although I was initially intrigued by your efforts), and as you have elected to not respond in both #125 nor #126 you have convinced me.
... chuckling ... And yes, you did amuse me.
You've managed exactly one intelligent remark, and bailed on the response to that. If anyone should be glad this exchange is going to go bye-bye, he's in your mirror.
"...he’s in your mirror."
Look and see! LOL!
I will grant you that your posts have demonstrated the solipsist position makes genuine communication impossible.
... smiling ... And you're very much welcome to it.
You have yet to demonstrate that you have anything to communicate in the first place, much less the ability to do so. You proceed, like MM, simply by assertion – ironically, without referents (aside from W—dia and the zero-rent version of the OED, which itself you obviously don't understand). I'm not surprised that you've evaded the question of your alma mater.
“ the zero-rent version “
As if a “for fee” version would have a better definition?