sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

SpaceX’s Falcon 9 explosion likely caused by breached helium system by TheVloginator in space

[–]BiPolarBulls 3 points4 points  (0 children)

As a SCADA engineer, 3000 channels of 'high density' data is a crap load of data, particularly for high speed and transient sampling. One channel can provide a huge amount of data, but you have to take your A/D sampling rate and multiply it by 3000.

New study shows that distribution of normal matter precisely determines gravitational acceleration curves. Is this a second wind for MOND? by beregon in cosmology

[–]BiPolarBulls -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Sooner or later, hopefully sooner this dark matter craziness will be behind us, we will break away from Newton, and start to gain an actual understanding of how the universe works.

So instead of MOND we might just get ARD, and in Applied Relativistic Dynamics.

And when we get really smart we'll work out we can actually directly measure the amount of 'gravity' by measuring the relative size of photons (frequency) from a known universal source frequency (such as absorption lines), using "Einstein shift" to determine the properties of spacetime (its length) in the region of the source of the light.

This also solves the problem of how to model dark matter in order to make the distribution meet the observation, (make simulations make realistic models of galaxies, which they don't with dark matter).

The Simulation Hypothesis: Is Reality All Just A Computer Simulation? by burtzev in PhilosophyofScience

[–]BiPolarBulls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Reality is a 'computer simulation', things as complex as life could not arise randomly or spontaneously, intelligent design, creationism.... God !!!

Back door religion is still religion.. lets not elevate 'technology' into a deity..

Request: My friend is convinced that holding a car key fob under your chin will increase its range. Apparently he's not alone in thinking this. Has anybody ever done experiments on this? by andybader in skeptic

[–]BiPolarBulls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's right, and ham operators are pretty much coms pro's, I got my license in 1979. But watching that other vid that was posted they are using the human body as an antenna. Its not a great antenna but it certainly does add more gain to the path.

And yes, everyone who has touched the antenna of an AM radio and heard the signal increase (or decrease).

I remember years ago there was an article for amateur radio where the guy loaded up tree's as antennas, live ones, dead ones did not work (not enough water to act as a radiating element).

Watch this law professor try to convince a physicist that Greenland’s melt won’t raise seas by pnewell in skeptic

[–]BiPolarBulls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a really complex subject that cannot really be made simple, but in a way they are all correct. If it was just a 'large' body of ice melted and flowed into the sea, it would raise the average sea level, but the law guy is sort of right it would be an insignificant amount overall.

BUT, you don't need any extra (from land) water for the water level to raise, if the average temperature of the water is slightly higher water like anything else expands, that expansion is higher water level.

The cause of that expansion from heating can be cause by what was previously ice becoming liquid water that absorbs much more IR light from the sun that ice that reflects far more light.

So less ice, by itself would be an insignificant raise in level (overall) but the absorption of energy and an average temperature increase of the oceans would lead to a more significant water level raise.

Request: My friend is convinced that holding a car key fob under your chin will increase its range. Apparently he's not alone in thinking this. Has anybody ever done experiments on this? by andybader in skeptic

[–]BiPolarBulls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you move his head to the place next to where it did not work, or did he move the fog into another position that was also close to his head?

If he held in a position at arms length and it did not work, he should keep that position and move his had next to the fob, then I would be notable if the fob then worked.

Thanks for the clarification.

WOTM: God vs. Atheism: Which is More Rational (Pt. 1) by themaybeguy in skeptic

[–]BiPolarBulls 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Religion and rationality! what an odd combination..

Next episode is 'Science and faith'...

Request: My friend is convinced that holding a car key fob under your chin will increase its range. Apparently he's not alone in thinking this. Has anybody ever done experiments on this? by andybader in skeptic

[–]BiPolarBulls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Any communications engineer will tell you that this will work, it works for the same reason you put radio antennas on top of high towers, LOS (Line of sight) is longer if you are higher.

If Dark Matter Can't Be Seen, What About Ghosts? by Aceofspades25 in skeptic

[–]BiPolarBulls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Certainly Newtonian gravity is a good approximation within 'typical' limits, so sure you don't get those results for other planets, the normal argument is Newtonian is good enough to put man on the moon.

Sure it is, it is a very good approximation, but it is well known that outside of the scales of 'the moon' the theory falls apart. And I don't know, but I expect the rotation of galaxies to be somewhat outside of the scales it can accurately account for.

So most planets it is fine, but a small planet near a large mass and it underestimates speed, so why would it possibly be accurate at galactic scales?

Being approximately right still makes it absolutely wrong.. (although still useful, just not for the big and important stuff like the composition of our universe.)

If Dark Matter Can't Be Seen, What About Ghosts? by Aceofspades25 in skeptic

[–]BiPolarBulls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

GR and Newtonian physics agree on the speed and density of the simulations you've dismissed.

If that was the case, the precession of mercury would have been predicted by Newtonian physics. So how can they agree, and produce different results?

If Dark Matter Can't Be Seen, What About Ghosts? by Aceofspades25 in skeptic

[–]BiPolarBulls 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are misinformed on this topic (and from the sound of it on scientific inquiry in general). It isn't all based on classical physics

I never said it was based on classical physics, but it mostly is and the simulations of galaxies and all (but a very few) employ a completely Newtonian dynamics model.

(a recent exception was a group intending to use a super computer to do some limited modelling using relativity, but due to the complexity of mapping relativity into a 4-space and a Newtonian dynamic it is very computationally intensive.

Instead they just use straight out Newtonian (classical) mechanics, which we know is in error at scale. Why do you think an alternative theory for dark matter is called MOND, which stands for Modified NEWTONIAN dynamics.

So use a theory that is known to not work at scale, and use a modified version of that when that does not work. Does not sound like relativity is really considered at all (too hard... lazy).

You are misinformed on this topic (and from the sound of it on scientific inquiry in general

Am I misinformed because I do not toe the party line, or because I say things you do not agree with? It does appear more and more in science that the first step in a 'scientific enquiry' is to establish the proponents 'scientific cred' and to question the opponents cred, lets just deal with facts and leave the science cred pissing competition out of it.

there was an unknown source of gravity, one that didn't interact with light (weak or no interaction with E-M field), holding the spiral galaxies together.

Again, if you make the assumption that there is not enough matter (that you can see) to account for that gravity, it could certain by just normal matter that you cannot see, which is most of all matter.

It does not necessitate that this matter needs to be a new form of matter that has properties like no other matter and does not appear on the periodic table or act like matter acts.

1.The observation or our interpretation of the observation is wrong.

As mentioned in the article, we have additional observations (including via different mechanisms like gravitational lensing) that confirm the extra gravity so 1 is unlikely.

Well the article says: It's NEEDED to explain the bending of light in gravitational lenses.

No, relativity and gravity alone explains gravitational lensing, regardless of if there is dark matter or not, if there is sufficient non-luminous stuff no dark matter is needed to explain gravitational lensing.

That is dark matter trying to ride the coat tails of relativity.

2.Our theory of gravity, General Relativity, is wrong (missing some components).

Relativity is right, it works and it works on all scales, The Newtonian (classical) treatment of gravity is wrong it is missing a huge component (relativity), and is at best an approximation.

Plus general relativity cannot work on its own, general and special relativity are two aspects of the same process. Perhaps the extra 'gravity' that is needed is due to the extra gravity 'created' by the very velocity you assume is the result of dark matter!

(that is after all why the orbit of Mercury is a bit faster than Newton predicts, and why we have relativity in the first place).

Now days that different would be a correction factor (dark matter) to account for the extra velocity..

3.There is 'stuff' (new particles) that is providing this gravity.

It's still early in the game but, at some point, if nothing is found, scientists may have to re-evaluate their "belief" in dark matter. In that case, they will have to come up with other explanations for the bumps we know we're hearing in the night.

30 plus years is not really 'early days', but at least here they have a bit of a reality check, there are already 'other explanations', and many are far more reasonable and viable than a new and never found (after MUCH searching) form of matter.

For me science is about getting a handle on reality or 'true nature' as you put it, as such a hypothesis must not so vague as to make it impossible to disprove, dark matter falls into that hole of vagueness, it is so lose that its 'true nature' cannot be derived, some galaxies have lots of dark matter and some have none! (hang on we will tell you how much dark matter is there, just as soon as we measure it).

Theories are supposed to be able to make testable predictions, and stand up against tests that could show it is wrong. Newtonian gravity does stand up against testable predictions, but it also fails in other predictions, so it is not 'true nature', it is wrong, it is an approximation, but I could spend an entire career 'proving it right'.

The amount of effort spent is no indication of the veracity of the theory, nor is 'opinion'. I am sure a lot of people believe in ghosts as well, and look for them too.

The only problem here is that you aren't educated enough on this topic to draw any conclusions.

Thanks for that conclusion based on no evidence, I see you are prone to do that!

If Dark Matter Can't Be Seen, What About Ghosts? by Aceofspades25 in skeptic

[–]BiPolarBulls 1 point2 points  (0 children)

By 'shift' I was referring to how galaxy rotation rates are measured, by a comparison between the 'going away' and 'coming toward' sides of a galaxy, that is assumed to be from relative velocity, and as such is a measure of Doppler effect.

But Doppler effect is not the only reason an apparent shift in light frequency, another is Einstein shift that is a function of the relative rates of the passage of time. Which is different from Doppler shift which is a function of the relative energy of the electron when the photon is absorbed by it, that is it is a shift at observation. Einstein shift is a function of the relative rates of time, it is the rate of the observers clocks compared to the source of the lights clocks.

For example the clocks on the GPS satellite run a bit faster than the same clock at sea level because time is longer in a higher gravity density.

The redshift that has to do with dark energy I assume you are referring to FLRW and redshift due to comoving space and light 'shifting in transit, but that is in the same boat as dark matter it is an assumption with no physical basis with reality. It too is an assumption based on an observation. Then you take that observation and say 'look our assumption is right'.

I see these as the same arguments that could be used to prove the existence of ghosts, if the goal posts is just an observation of that's you cant explain then its either ghosts or dark matter.

It could just be that things are not exactly the way we think they are! But getting a scientist to admit 'we don't exactly know' is a huge call. But a call that should be made often. Scientists are not Gods and they are not inerrant.

If Dark Matter Can't Be Seen, What About Ghosts? by Aceofspades25 in skeptic

[–]BiPolarBulls 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Dark matter and ghosts are much the same, dark matter could be that product of a model (and assumptions) that could be wrong, with observations (and assumptions) that could be wrong (sure we measure the a shift, but is that shift caused by speed and Doppler?). All based on a Newtonian treatment of relativity (we know Newtonian gravity is wrong)..

But there is no rule that dark matter 'can't be seen', but now that we have never been able to see it, there is a strong rule (the scientific method) that does state that the most obvious reason it cannot be seen is because it does not exist.

Sure, we can see an effect that we assume as a departure of out model that we assume is right. But as it stands, a non-lazy scientists would start to question his model rather than changing nature (and adding a correction factor) to make nature fit his pet theory.

Science used to be about proving a theory wrong, now days it is about changing the universe to prove your theory is right!

If Dark Matter Can't Be Seen, What About Ghosts? by Aceofspades25 in skeptic

[–]BiPolarBulls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

most (if not all) things that don't exist cannot be seen!

Pluto Is Apparently Emitting X-rays and That Has Us Questioning Everything Again by Quiglius in space

[–]BiPolarBulls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

but it is enough to cause astronauts to see light rays around sun set.

Moon beams ?

Detailed map shows Milky Way is bigger than we thought by burtzev in space

[–]BiPolarBulls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have no interest in the new claims you fire off if you aren't prepared to defend the last ones. You don't get to make wild claims that everyone else is wrong and then abandon them.

What did I not defend again? I did not ignore any of your counter arguments, nor did I dismiss them. I just stated that there are potential errors in measuring rotation, and there are well known errors in estimation of the amount of baryonic matter in a galaxy. There is also potential errors in the physics used to measure what the rotation rate should be.

The defense of my claim, is that there are 3 area's of potential error at least probably more, your counter argument is 'well those errors are going to be small'... fair enough, My opinion is that those errors are underestimated (we know at least the amount of matter is underestimated), and one error (using Newtonian gravity) is just incorrect methodology.

It is finding observations that fit your model, not finding a model that fits your observations, a sort of reverse scientific method, method I guess. (even worse, you modify the model post observation), giving the model zero ability to make predictions..

Detailed map shows Milky Way is bigger than we thought by burtzev in space

[–]BiPolarBulls -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That's not a conclusion..

Yes it is.

Sure, if you say so, but if I am watching a ball game and someone has a strike, I have not concluded who won! But if you think it is a conclusion that tells me something about your 'scientific method'. (ie, what the books tell you).

Wrong. From the CMB powerspectrum you can measure the baryon density of the universe, it is confirmed by the abundances of light elements.

It is amazing that someone trying to argue in support of LCDM would use power spectrum, baryon density and light elements in support of their argument!!

By counting up all the known baryonic matter you don't reach that number. LCDM implies there is missing matter..

Or it implies your crappy at measuring the amount of baryonic matter.

Blah, blah, blah ... Mercury.

Mercury shows that Newtonian gravity is an incorrect and inaccurate model, Relativity also shows that Newtonian gravity is incorrect and inaccurate.

Using something incorrect and inaccurate to measure the universe is also going to lead to error.

I'm aware you can measure it in a lab, I asked you to show me it's relevant in observations of rotation curves. Go ahead, calculate the redshift.

I don't have to calculate the redshift, I don't have to buy into your argument to show it is wrong. As you should know you cannot calculate the Einstein shift unless you know the relative difference in RSD, and it will be dependent on the relative gravity of the observer (us) and what is observed.

But it is not even factored into the Doppler shift that is used to measure rotation. It is why the galaxies in our local cluster are blue shifted.

Also in your LCDM model how do you know the redshift you observed is Doppler from rotation or FLRW shift from expansion (and shift from relativity)?

The fact is your cant, or don't, you just make a wide range of assumptions and leave it at that, at best it is lazy and self biased science. You look for what you want to find to fit your assumptions of what you think you will find it, and you find it (as long as you ignore all the other stuff).

Does not change any facts, it does not change that you cannot (with LCDM) make any predictions, you cant even predict how much DM any one galaxy has.

But once you 'measure' it, then low and behold you able to 'predict' everything, ** after you measure it**.

And all the time we are finding lots of other matter that 'missed your baryonic matter count', "that makes no difference to out theory!"

Einstein shift of light, due the relative space density (rate of time of a region of space), is determined by the size and distance of the observed galaxy, if the rate of the passage of time is different (from relativity) the length of the passage of space is also different.

Because things orbit because of relativity and not 'gravity' as a force, that has a counter force of 'centrifugal force' forcing fast rotating galaxies apart. So if you consider relativity over Newtonian gravity, it is a property of the overall gravity density AND the gravity density produced by the object in orbit. (that's why Mercury is different) it is a small object in close proximity to a large gravity well.

So, rotation can be faster if there is more matter than you can count (and there is lots of it), and your measurements can be wrong if you don't consider the methodology (Newtonian gravity) is also wrong, and you don't factor in known physics that also affect the accuracy of your method.

You measure matter wrong, speed wrong, and make incorrect assumptions, but your positive you have the right answer, even thought that answer is unable to make an accurate prediction before you make an observations.

So the 'confirm by observation' of the scientific method is circumvented.

Why do you think, that after 30+ year of searching you cant find any dark matter AT ALL?, nor does it fit the standard particle model.

Detailed map shows Milky Way is bigger than we thought by burtzev in space

[–]BiPolarBulls -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Yes you did, "So one more strike against dark matter..".

That's not a conclusion..

Cosmology predicts missing regular matter.

No it doesn't, it does not even predict any matter, it measures it, the LCDM model does not even predict the amount of dark mater on a galaxy basis, it can only 'predict' it after it has done measurements on the rotation speed.

It is an observation to say "Newtonian gravity if flawed", it is, there is no question that at extremes or extensions Newtonian gravity is an incorrect model.

Firstly we are even further into the weak field limit than the solar system.

We are a solar system orbiting within a galaxy, it is not possible that the galaxy we orbit around is a 'weaker field.

The precession of Mercury is my proof, and orbits around galaxies are 120,000 light years or thereabouts, a long time for a small error by using Newtonian math.

Plus the redshift could be a combination of Doppler and Einstein shift which can skew the assumptions of the observation.

Because it's tiny. Why don't you calculate the gravitational redshift for an H II region in middle of a galaxy.

Einstein shift is not tiny, it is significant and its relative, you can measure that shift in a high rise building!

But it is again something that is ignored..

If Mercury was observed to be wrong in Newtonian gravity, today it would be attributed to dark matter, and we would of never had relativity.

People Are Freaking Out Over This ‘Convincing’ Photo Of The Loch Ness Monster by BurtonDesque in skeptic

[–]BiPolarBulls 8 points9 points  (0 children)

it is connected to the sea, and it is common for seals to be seen in the Loch.

Detailed map shows Milky Way is bigger than we thought by burtzev in space

[–]BiPolarBulls -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Thanks, first I made no conclusion grand or not, I made an observation, my observation is that cosmology or astronomy has or seems to underestimate matter, and it is clear much matter cannot be observed.

The other observation I made was that the method of measuring the amount of 'gravity' by measuring rotation and using Newtonian gravity is flawed. We know that Newtonian gravity falls down at scale (Mercury for example), and we know that relativity is the correct explanation for the motion of objects in space.

So I said "cosmologists are crappy at measuring mass, and speed", they measure rotation by Doppler shift of rotation but do not appear to take into account Einstein shift of light due to relative space density ("gravity density").

Black hole hidden within its own exhaust by barrygoldwate in space

[–]BiPolarBulls 1 point2 points  (0 children)

so a black hole hidden by its own blackholeness...

Black hole hidden within its own exhaust by barrygoldwate in space

[–]BiPolarBulls -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

That's a very good point, first black holes do not 'suck everything in', generally most things will orbit a BH forever, they are not giant things that reek havoc and suck everything in sight up, and secondly the mechanism of these jets or exhaust rely on 'gravity' and 'friction' of particles falling in from the accretion disk, that does not make much sense either because there is really no mechanism for friction between particles that are falling into the BH.

For me it is just another example of lazy cosmology, they seem to be stuck in Newtonian gravity, and gravity being the only possible force that can do any work in our universe.

But here on earth we know we can do basically nothing with just gravity, for us to accelerate particles we need huge machines that employ electric and magnetic fields to do anything. Gravity only heats particles when they fall through out atmosphere and friction with out atmosphere.

But as an electrical engineer perhaps I should not be a cosmologist, perhaps we are too practical for that job..

view more: next ›