Originally posted by saluyamo
whats 11th again? I only know 10..
Omega_M
quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
I think so.. My own gut feeling is that dark matter is really the same as regular matter..only it is invisible to us because it exists in one of the higher spatial dimensions. We are only capable of perceiving 3 dimensions, however M-theory predicts we actually live in an 11 dimensional universe. If there is matter floating around in higher dimensions that permeate the universe, there could be something special about gravity that allows it to "leak" back and forth between the higher dimensions, and that would explain much of the invisible mass we are detecting in our 3D view of things..
Are you studying physics ?
Capitalizt
quote:
Originally posted by Omega_M
Are you studying physics ?
Just for fun. ;)
couch-potato
Mind = blown.
I read a book about the nature of quantum mechanics & it was really summed up best as such:
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."
By the way, wasn't anyone else disturbed by Dawkins' criticism about students enrolling in "Media & Communication Studies"? All right, we need as many scientists as possible, but Media Studies is not useless at all. I'd expect him to knock theology, but this was just uncalled for.
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade
The difference is that the gravitational effects of dark matter can be measured and mapped, whereas - so far as I'm aware at least - there was never any particular evidence for the luminiferous ether. There is certainly something that is exerting a large gravitational force on galaxies and the extent to which this something in any way resembles baryonic matter (i.e. the matter that you, me and the stars are made from) is yet to be known, but until then the potentially misleading term "dark matter" will have to do.
I see, good point. You're right about the evidence for ether being insufficient even back then: I remember scientists were claiming they "were about to find it", rather than claiming they had found it, just a couple of months before Einstein imploded the whole programme, so this may well be a difference.
winston
lira, it doesn't matter. it just strikes me ass odd, to see that David Bohm emphasized this idea of communicating and engaging on dialogue. An idea of removing all mental blocks which inhibit our true purpose and need to express and communicate. All those insecurities and habits which have been engrained from our past experiences. All sciences are derived from language. I think if more sciencess and academic fields would emphasize on the improvement of communication, the world of scientific research would be vastly improved if those media and communications majors would bring about ideas to re-educate society to think in different ways, and to engage in less pop-culture hedonism, and to focus on more academic and ethic issues, involving science and the such...
Speaking of which, Bill Gates just published Feynman's lectures on Physics. I really recommend you see them. Physics is the superior science (after computer science and artificial intelligence). :p
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by winston
Physics is the superior science (after computer science and artificial intelligence). :p
Yeah, because everything can be reduced to physics, right? ;)
As for the rest of what you said, I agree (though I'm biased towards language, you know :p). If only more scientists managed to speak to a broader public, many misconceptions that plague the social understanding of science would be cleared... though we'd need to be careful not to go to the other extreme, and end up with scientific religions, which unfortunately tend to pick the worst of both sides.
edit: Thanks for the tip, by the way, I'll look for that.
winston
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
Yeah, because everything can be reduced to physics, right? ;)
As for the rest of what you said, I agree (though I'm biased towards language, you know :p). If only more scientists managed to speak to a broader public, many misconceptions that plague the social understanding of science would be cleared... though we'd need to be careful not to go to the other extreme, and end up with scientific religions, which unfortunately tend to pick the worst of both sides.
edit: Thanks for the tip, by the way, I'll look for that.
I was being silly, I was serious about the first paragraph. Unfortunately, the language of science is ... mathematics. And it seems that most people shun away any opportunity of engaging in understanding or learning math; I don't know how people find it tedious or boring. this is simply my point of view. Perhaps education and previous practices of mathematics have unintentionally brought to light a side of it being a very 'black and white' practice. But, it is not true; there are many holes in mathematics, many things which are yet to be understood and explored
nothing in science is dogma, whereas religion, everything is carved and set in stone. There is nothing wrong with having freedom to believe in anything you want to believe, until that practice becomes autocratic and senseless. Fanaticism creates havoc, passion sheds blood, authority corrupts the soul; only science will set you free.
EgosXII
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
we'd need to be careful not to go to the other extreme, and end up with scientific religions, which unfortunately tend to pick the worst of both sides.
.
this is the problem with lay-scientists... they know nothing, but they think they do.
some of the most annoying people alive imo :p
actually, same with religious people who don't understand the bible...
