TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- dark matter mapped
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo no no no. i should have said "it's origin" [Big Bang] by itself. as we understand the expansion so well now, the origin of the Big Bang becomes the question, hence it still being regarded as theory. thats what i understood (maybe wanted to understand) your post to mean in other words.

The only reason I gave the example of big bang was to show that a theory can be proved without performing direct experiments. The scientific community acknowledged the proof by giving the discoverers a Noble prize for their efforts !

This is the second time, a Noble prize has been awarded for a proof of the Big Bang. The first prize was awarded in late 70s to two engineers in Bell Labs who stumbled upon a continuous background microwave radiation existing in the Universe. This radiation was proved to be a remnant of the big bang and was the first direct proof that the theory was probably correct. However, minute variations were observed in the background radiation when more accurate readings were taken using NASA's COBE (The Cosmic Background Explorer ) satellite. It was showed that these variations were quite consistent with the Big Bang theory. In fact the theory predicted such minute variations ! The second Noble prize was given for proving beyond doubt that the Big Bang was correct !!

We actually don't understand the expansion so well. The expansion is more well known because the proof was given as early as 1920s by Edwin Hubble. His observations showed that the universe is expanding. We are still not certain whether the Universe will continue to expand for ever, expand and start contracting or, will expand and come to a halt. The key to this understanding is the dark matter. If dark matter is proved to exist, then there is a chance the universe will eventually stop expanding and start contracting again. This is called the Big Crunch hypothesis.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby The problem with people today is that they put so much faith in the current models that they don't realize that there are any number of similar models that could work just the same but which would answer other problems. We also assume that we can only use one model, building only upon the shoulders of giants. It's a weakness that one day we'll realize and find solutions to.

lots of scientific formulas or theories begin as a loose collection of models. its not like someone "discovers" one and everyone jumps on the bandwagon. normally you have a bunch of theories to explain what we see, and eventually one is shown to "fit" the evidence better than the others.

the idea that there are heaps of different models out there just isn't credible. the universe is so finely tuned it is highly unlikely existing models are completely wrong (as renegade noted) to such an extent. just as the people who discovered the DNA model, some things just "fit" when you look at them, because science is so elegant, models that represent that elegant simplicity are fairly obvious once unearthed.

your idea that there are concurrent & equally feasible/accurate models in explaining such phenomena (which is completely missed by the very experts sent out to discover it) just isnt credible imo.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M when I meant physics is not hypothetical or empirical, I meant precisely that. Physics and Mathematics are exact sciences. Chemistry is largely empirical. This is largely a political statement based on your assumptions and beliefs. Can you back it up with some proof ? Can you show me alternative models that work equally well ? Do you understand what relativity and quantum mechanics are all about ? Do you understand the scope of these theories ? What predictions they make ? How accurate these theories are ? The complexity of these theories ? You need to be able to answer these questions before you start talking of other similar models. Ok, this sums up your lack of appreciation of a key ingredient in this endeavor. Intellectual capability. The way you describe it, just about anybody can become a philosopher. All he has to do is sit on his ass and think all day !! Come on, how hard is it ? But why can't everybody become a philosopher ? I am not a scientist. But I have had enough education and research experience in the field of engineering to appreciate the level of intellect required to develop technology. Fundamental physics is on an altogether different level. It requires brilliance to make a mark in the world of physics. Not just good intellect. The theories which exist today have been introduced by some of the finest minds known to us. These people were extraordinarily brilliant. It is not everyday that a random guy comes up with a new theory. NO. The scientific advancement gives a good picture of the level of maturity of the entire humanity. It has taken a lot of struggle to come up to this point. Your assumption that there are countless theories out there and they teach only the accepted ones in school is false. What is being taught in schools, is what is out there. No more. It is for the students to learn old theories and apply them to new problems; then come up with new theories if old theories don't solve their problems. My only question is, did the alchemists succeed in turning any metal into gold ? In my opinion, you are just bullshitting about a topic you know little, if at all anything. Your picture of the scientific community is skewed. The proof that existing scientific models work can be seen everywhere around you. Just stare at a glowing bulb and realize that the manner in which it emits light, has been correctly described by quantum theory. Give me proof of your alternative theories. Not just arguments and beliefs and faiths and assumptions. Solid proof. Then we will talk. That is precisely what they do my friend. However, only great minds have the capability to do this with the necessary intellect to discriminate right from wrong.

Man... what an asshole response. You're talking out of your ass far too much to have any credence to continue this conversation.

If you really believe that science isn't a bunch of models abiding to specific greek logic systems, and if you really believe that our theories themselves aren't built on certain assumptions and 'philosophies', then I don't know what to tell you...

Maybe you should look into quantum physics, the closest the human race has come so far to potentially understanding the true nature of actuality.

The irony being that quantum physics is almost wholly based on an abstract layer of undefineable points, which simply by observation are forever changed and linked into probability potentials through wave functions that we can only dream about.

By the way, I'm insulted that you insinuated what and who I am and what I am capable of based on the fact that my opinions on the subject are different than yours... it's not my fault that you are unable to stand outside of your own ego and id (self and experience) and appreciate the systems that make up the way you view the world (in this case Greek systems of rationality). I'm not saying the greeks were wrong or right; they are definitely useful paradigms. I'm saying that *reality* doesn't abide by our forms of understanding it, and so multiple systems can be used to get the most out of mapping out this sea of unknowns that we all dwell within.

quote:

My only question is, did the alchemists succeed in turning any metal into gold ?

Many alchemists were pursuing a goal for greed, but it also may have largely been a coverup to justify their continued funding or work in a time of relatively dangerous political climate.

I can't believe you don't understand that the alchemists gave rise to modern chemistry through their experiments and ideas...

Then again, you said you're not a scientist, and you've already put limitations on yourself... I'm sure you've never been in a lab in your life, but I assure you, these alchemists who you are putting down laid the entire framework for what you've got today.

The first HCL gas generators were made six or seven hundred years ago, and we're using it in almost the same exact format. Ha!

quote:

What is being taught in schools, is what is out there.

Case and point... you don't actually believe this, do you?

By the way.....

What is "out there" and what is "in here" are the same damn thing. Realize that before you start judging the quality of the universe through humanistic models of problem solving based on survival.

peace

[naive]

I know very little about dark matter and all this and I admit I`ve had little time to read this thread. However, there are just two things I`d like to ask:

Is dark matter just an invisible kind of matter then? Is there any theories about the nature of this matter (i.e. whether its structure is different from the matter we know)?

A three letter long reply is enough

[/naive]

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lots of scientific formulas or theories begin as a loose collection of models. its not like someone "discovers" one and everyone jumps on the bandwagon. normally you have a bunch of theories to explain what we see, and eventually one is shown to "fit" the evidence better than the others. the idea that there are heaps of different models out there just isn't credible. the universe is so finely tuned it is highly unlikely existing models are completely wrong (as renegade noted) to such an extent. just as the people who discovered the DNA model, some things just "fit" when you look at them, because science is so elegant, models that represent that elegant simplicity are fairly obvious once unearthed. your idea that there are concurrent & equally feasible/accurate models in explaining such phenomena (which is completely missed by the very experts sent out to discover it) just isnt credible imo.

I'm not saying our theories are wrong or don't apply or that they aren't both useful and elegant.

I'm saying that as populations continue to boom and we continue to expand and perhaps create AI models to cross analyze more and more data, we'll start to see all the discrepencies come up and potential solutions be applied. They will most likely accomplish this by creating multiple overlapping matrices of potential models of understanding that both include and cut out the observer.

I'd say in the next 2000 years or so.

As for dark matter.. I'm not fond of it. And yes, I do have my own thoughts to alternative possibilities.

By the way, mathematics is nothing definitive either. It's a language structure, and it's *completely* a layer of abstraction.

If you've got two objects, lets say apples, then the apples are real and the fact that there are two is true, but the mathematical principle that they are there to be labeled as such is purely an ingenius abstract human conception. Keep in mind that mathematics are always being added to, so we're using what we've currently got.

No one has ever seen a "two", but we know through conditioning what the mathematical architecture means and how to apply it. This in itself has helped mold our consciousness to a new level.

There are some cultures in Africa that have no system of mathematics and actually can't count at all; to them, it simply doesn't exist in their consciousness, and the results are interesting.

This is how consciousness itself is our software that is upgraded based on the level of data we keep and pass on; it can go anywhere depending on what we decide to believe and what technologies we come up with. We didn't HAVE to have the telephone; but it made the most sense in this particular system we're in (Earth).

And by the way, to continue the analogy, our software can effect our hardware. That is to say: thinking in new and different ways stimulates different parts of the brain and builds different neural nets and cell structures, which leads to changes in the flow of blood/etc which in itself can help incite evolution. There's a lot more to all of this than we know, and it's really quite arrogant to assume still that we're the center of the universe; we take for granted the falsehood that we "know everything", just as humans have done since recorded history.

This is how quantum physics builds a link between an abstract space of fields of possibility floating "out there", and the matter and energy that populates the actual universe.

So where is your consciousness located? The part of you that "thinks"?

Is it an actual object, is it an abstraction "out there", or is it.. in-between?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby So where is your consciousness located? The part of you that "thinks"? Is it an actual object, is it an abstraction "out there", or is it.. in-between?

Paul Churchland and Daniel Dennett would like to have a word with you.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira [naive] I know very little about dark matter and all this and I admit I`ve had little time to read this thread. However, there are just two things I`d like to ask: Is dark matter just an invisible kind of matter then? Is there any theories about the nature of this matter (i.e. whether its structure is different from the matter we know)? A three letter long reply is enough [/naive]

Dark Matter is just matter which does not reflect light or energy to be "seen" in the conventional sense. They infer the presence of dark matter through its gravitational effects. Dark matter is heavier than ordinary matter and its contents are largely unknown. But it is theorized that dark matter may contain known and unknown type of particles, astronomical bodies like dwarf stars and planets and even non luminous gas. The wiki article mentions that only about 4% energy in this universe can be "observed". 22% is dark matter and 74% is Dark Energy The article on dark energy claims "This article or section may be confusing or unclear for some readers."

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby As for dark matter.. I'm not fond of it. And yes, I do have my own thoughts to alternative possibilities. By the way, mathematics is nothing definitive either. It's a language structure, and it's *completely* a layer of abstraction. If you've got two objects, lets say apples, then the apples are real and the fact that there are two is true, but the mathematical principle that they are there to be labeled as such is purely an ingenius abstract human conception. Keep in mind that mathematics are always being added to, so we're using what we've currently got. No one has ever seen a "two", but we know through conditioning what the mathematical architecture means and how to apply it. This in itself has helped mold our consciousness to a new level. There are some cultures in Africa that have no system of mathematics and actually can't count at all; to them, it simply doesn't exist in their consciousness, and the results are interesting. This is how consciousness itself is our software that is upgraded based on the level of data we keep and pass on; it can go anywhere depending on what we decide to believe and what technologies we come up with. We didn't HAVE to have the telephone; but it made the most sense in this particular system we're in (Earth). And by the way, to continue the analogy, our software can effect our hardware. That is to say: thinking in new and different ways stimulates different parts of the brain and builds different neural nets and cell structures, which leads to changes in the flow of blood/etc which in itself can help incite evolution. There's a lot more to all of this than we know, and it's really quite arrogant to assume still that we're the center of the universe; we take for granted the falsehood that we "know everything", just as humans have done since recorded history. This is how quantum physics builds a link between an abstract space of fields of possibility floating "out there", and the matter and energy that populates the actual universe. So where is your consciousness located? The part of you that "thinks"? Is it an actual object, is it an abstraction "out there", or is it.. in-between?

i really do think this kind of philsophical bollocks- though perhaps perdantically correct- does nothing for our understanding. if we were to reduce every problem to a question of language and the inherent limitations of such, we'd never get anything done. im of the opinion that though mathematical models are human constructs, they do indeed exist by themselves in just the same way gravity or time existed without human constructs to comprehend them. i really do see quasi-deconstructionist attempts at redefining scientific principles (that have been illustrated to exist ad nauseum) to be counter-productive.

you can doubt and question the sciences behind the nature of the humble PC, but there is absolutely no reason to question that the PC actually works, no matter how limited my capability to express that fact is.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Paul Churchland and Daniel Dennett would like to have a word with you.

I skimmed over their ideas and thats what happens. You can't examine thoughts with the mainstream constructs of what a thought is. All brain activity is exactly that, brain activity, which produces seemingly coherent patterns that we experience. Thanks for the links, i'll be reading some more on them.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i really do think this kind of philsophical bollocks- though perhaps perdantically correct- does nothing for our understanding. if we were to reduce every problem to a question of language and the inherent limitations of such, we'd never get anything done. im of the opinion that though mathematical models are human constructs, they do indeed exist by themselves in just the same way gravity or time existed without human constructs to comprehend them. i really do see quasi-deconstructionist attempts at redefining scientific principles (that have been illustrated to exist ad nauseum) to be counter-productive. you can doubt and question the sciences behind the nature of the humble PC, but there is absolutely no reason to question that the PC actually works, no matter how limited my capability to express that fact is.

You see them as quasi-deconstructionalist because you don't have the creativity and knowledge yet to visualize their presence as they exist in the universe.

So what are you trying to tell me?

That you can understand *some* abstract ideas, like math and gravity and time, yet you can't even put the time and effort into seeing their inherent existence between actuality and abstraction?

So there's your bollocks philosphy for you -- you hypocritically take for granted what you believe to be true, while arrogantly putting down anything that might require you to think for more than a few moments on a matter, labeling it immediately as unworthwhile.

Nice work; you should re-examine your information processing and handling memes... they're broken.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby You see them as quasi-deconstructionalist because you don't have the creativity and knowledge yet to visualize their presence as they exist in the universe. So what are you trying to tell me? That you can understand *some* abstract ideas, like math and gravity and time, yet you can't even put the time and effort into seeing their inherent existence between actuality and abstraction? So there's your bollocks philosphy for you -- you hypocritically take for granted what you believe to be true, while arrogantly putting down anything that might require you to think for more than a few moments on a matter, labeling it immediately as unworthwhile. Nice work; you should re-examine your information processing and handling memes... they're broken.

no, just illustrating the vast differences between philosophy and science. philosophy can go round and round pointlessly, without ever reaching any definitive conclusion. at least science is trying to answer questions, rather than just asking them.

also, show me how gravity is an abstract idea. gravity was around well before the human race was to "abstract" it.

the philsophers have merely interpreted the world. the point is to change it -karl marx.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby I'm not saying our theories are wrong or don't apply or that they aren't both useful and elegant. I'm saying that as populations continue to boom and we continue to expand and perhaps create AI models to cross analyze more and more data, we'll start to see all the discrepencies come up and potential solutions be applied. They will most likely accomplish this by creating multiple overlapping matrices of potential models of understanding that both include and cut out the observer. I'd say in the next 2000 years or so. As for dark matter.. I'm not fond of it. And yes, I do have my own thoughts to alternative possibilities. By the way, mathematics is nothing definitive either. It's a language structure, and it's *completely* a layer of abstraction. If you've got two objects, lets say apples, then the apples are real and the fact that there are two is true, but the mathematical principle that they are there to be labeled as such is purely an ingenius abstract human conception. Keep in mind that mathematics are always being added to, so we're using what we've currently got. No one has ever seen a "two", but we know through conditioning what the mathematical architecture means and how to apply it. This in itself has helped mold our consciousness to a new level. There are some cultures in Africa that have no system of mathematics and actually can't count at all; to them, it simply doesn't exist in their consciousness, and the results are interesting. This is how consciousness itself is our software that is upgraded based on the level of data we keep and pass on; it can go anywhere depending on what we decide to believe and what technologies we come up with. We didn't HAVE to have the telephone; but it made the most sense in this particular system we're in (Earth). And by the way, to continue the analogy, our software can effect our hardware. That is to say: thinking in new and different ways stimulates different parts of the brain and builds different neural nets and cell structures, which leads to changes in the flow of blood/etc which in itself can help incite evolution. There's a lot more to all of this than we know, and it's really quite arrogant to assume still that we're the center of the universe; we take for granted the falsehood that we "know everything", just as humans have done since recorded history. This is how quantum physics builds a link between an abstract space of fields of possibility floating "out there", and the matter and energy that populates the actual universe. So where is your consciousness located? The part of you that "thinks"? Is it an actual object, is it an abstraction "out there", or is it.. in-between?

LOL, now I remember exactly why I switched from philosophy to chemistry.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild LOL, now I remember exactly why I switched from philosophy to chemistry.

I <3 chemistry.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M Dark Matter is just matter which does not reflect light or energy to be "seen" in the conventional sense. They infer the presence of dark matter through its gravitational effects. Dark matter is heavier than ordinary matter and its contents are largely unknown. But it is theorized that dark matter may contain known and unknown type of particles, astronomical bodies like dwarf stars and planets and even non luminous gas. The wiki article mentions that only about 4% energy in this universe can be "observed". 22% is dark matter and 74% is Dark Energy The article on dark energy claims "This article or section may be confusing or unclear for some readers."

Cheers, mate

quote:

Originally posted by venomX I skimmed over their ideas and thats what happens. You can't examine thoughts with the mainstream constructs of what a thought is. All brain activity is exactly that, brain activity, which produces seemingly coherent patterns that we experience. Thanks for the links, i'll be reading some more on them.

Read "Kinds of Minds", by Dennett, and "Matter and Consciousness" by Churchland. Both are accessible to non-philosophers and quite interesting.

http://space.newscientist.com/chann...detail-yet.html

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby I <3 chemistry.

Don't we all.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.