|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2008 : 12:14:51 [Permalink]
|
I started this thread because I have changed my position on dark matter, I stated previously that I felt most if not all DM was some form of normal matter, previously undetected, I have scrapped that Idea for one of my own Mozinas, which is this: Dark matter is simply a result of super accelerated normal matter, i.e. the additional mass. Not sure yet if this is a result of some current velocity or perhaps if it could be a remnant from the big bang which has yet to dissapate. I've got to figure out if the dark energy expansion could possibly cause an increase in a mass which is being pushed by the DE.
Thanks to some "special" friends I have learned how to ignore all logical arguements against my new position. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
 |
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2008 : 12:20:24 [Permalink]
|
Hmmm... But wouldn't super-accelerated objects be far away ahead of us by now?
Wouldn't their gravitic pull be too short to interfere with us? And hence fail to explain the observed acceleration? |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2008 : 16:33:45 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
| my point was that thinking about it in such terms is probably where you're stumbling. |
| you'd obviously prefer to focus on the meanings of the words used to describe the concepts |
I am unclear as to how not to think about a new concept that I have read about, other than using the meaning of the words that I have read that described that concept! Does one focus on meaning that is not given in the words that describe the concept in question?
How do you do it? If you will describe the cognitive process to me, I will certainly try it, but as of now, I just don't know how! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2008 : 17:45:08 [Permalink]
|
| bng, I suggested that you shouldn't think about it as a transformation, you chose to focus on the definition of "transformation" rather than the concept under discussion. And now you want me to describe the cognitive process of not getting sidetracked? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2008 : 18:08:01 [Permalink]
|
Simon.....
| Well; Webster is not a physic textbook so their definition may have overlooked some aspect of the physicists'. |
Well, there's wiki's words on the matter here....| While one form of energy may be transformed to another, the total energy remains the same. This principle, the conservation of energy, was first postulated in the early 19th century, and applies to any isolated system. According to Noether's theorem, the conservation of energy is a consequence of the fact that the laws of physics do not change over time. |
and here.....| In physics and engineering, energy transformation or energy conversion, is any process of transforming one form of energy to another. |
Remember, matter, or mass, is a form of energy!
A rather extensive PDF article on the subject that tosses the "transformation" word around cavalierly is here.....Cambridge University Press
0521791650 - Biological Thermodynamics - Donald T. Haynie Title:
Energy Transformation |
There are literally dozens of other wiki articles that I have referenced in the past week that use the word "transformation" when describing conversions of matter-energy into energy-energy, or the reverse.
I am quite certain that the word is in common usage in many of the rather clumsy attempts that physicists make in attempting to explain particle physics in non-mathematical terminology. Dave might be happier with the word conversion, but the two words are extensively used interchangeably by experts in their fields.
Consequently, I feel confident in continuing to use the word "transformation" when attempting to describe such processes.
I am going back to Stephen Hawking's popularizations tonight in an effort to see what English terminology he may use to describe Matter or Mass relationships to Energy. Also Richard Rhodes and several other popularizers of nuclear and astrophysics.
More later!
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2008 : 18:11:44 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
| And now you want me to describe the cognitive process of not getting sidetracked? |
Nope, just how to think of a new subject that you have just read about - without using the meaning of the words that you read!
Like I asked!
No sidetrack there! Just a blind alley! |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 09/24/2008 20:08:48 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2008 : 18:40:10 [Permalink]
|
But you transform one type of energy into another type.
You don't transform electricity into energy. Rather you transform electrical energy into heat energy.
Similarly, you do not transform mass into energy; rather you transform kinetic energy into massic energy.
That's how I'd take it at least. But, as you may have noticed; I am no physicist.
|
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 09/24/2008 : 18:53:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Consequently, I feel confident in continuing to use the word "transformation" when attempting to describe such processes. |
What about when you think about them? 
What happens to individual child's blocks in a tall stack when that stack transforms into a pile when jostled too hard? Do the individual blocks "transform" in any macroscopic way?
Now what about a single iota of kinetic energy in a bullet? When it transforms into heat energy due to drag with the atmosphere, what physical difference does it have? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2008 : 21:40:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Thanks to some "special" friends I have learned how to ignore all logical arguements against my new position. |
Well, even though you won't listen: if dark matter were just really, really fast matter, then we'd still be able to see it (it wouldn't be "dark"). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Zeked
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2008 : 00:35:27 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
| What happens to individual child's blocks in a tall stack when that stack transforms into a pile when jostled too hard? |
The kid has a shit fit! Throws the blocks all over the room!
| Now what about a single iota of kinetic energy in a bullet? When it transforms into heat energy due to drag with the atmosphere, what physical difference does it have? |
The poor little fucker gets a hole in his head and stops crying, fast!!
AASQGASA!
I don't know where you got the idea that I thought that particles become Zombies or something when they transform from a matter configuration to an energy configuration, or the reverse!
I merely pointed out that many skilled folks writing on these matters use the word "transformation" to describe the transition from one state to another! The fact that there is a rearrangement of the pattern of particles, introduction of different particles, change of the status of various particles, etc., is a given.
Originally, you said: | Thinking of it as a "transformation" is to miss what's probably reality: |
I think of it as a transformation because it is a fucking transformation! Many, many very educated science writers use the word! So the word is good enough for me.
Show me a distinquished nuclear physicist or two that argues with the validity of the word "transformation" used in this context, and I'll stop poking fun at you and listen a little more carefully!
I really don't get what imaginary scab you are picking at!
What produces the heat energy when you ignite a pile of logs?
Is the entire ensuing process of combustion properly described by E0 = M0C2 ? |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 09/25/2008 01:46:29 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2008 : 03:15:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
I really don't get what imaginary scab you are picking at! |
That much is obvious. Next time you ask for help, you might want to think about not rejecting the help that's offered. Except, of course, that would mean changing your cognitive processes, which is what you asked for help with, so I can see why you're lashing out. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2008 : 05:14:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Thanks to some "special" friends I have learned how to ignore all logical arguements against my new position. |
Well, even though you won't listen: if dark matter were just really, really fast matter, then we'd still be able to see it (it wouldn't be "dark").
|
No its not the matter but its halo/aura whatever, as far as I know all dark matter so far detected is surrounding normal matter.
I have lots of other ideas if you like, like dark matter being a sort of water table, when mass erodes space into a hole, dark matter fills the hole! See how easy science is when you ignore the details. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2008 : 05:53:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Thanks to some "special" friends I have learned how to ignore all logical arguements against my new position. |
Well, even though you won't listen: if dark matter were just really, really fast matter, then we'd still be able to see it (it wouldn't be "dark").
|
No its not the matter but its halo/aura whatever, as far as I know all dark matter so far detected is surrounding normal matter. |
But that seems to me to only be the case because we can only observe Dark Matter by observing how things act around ordinary matter. That is, we see ordinary matter not acting properly, and postulate DM as a solution to that.
DM may very well be in other places, but how would we know?
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2008 : 06:39:08 [Permalink]
|
| Recently they have been able to detect DM by the way it bends light, if there were large amounts of it in the intergalalactic voids, it would be detectable. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 09/25/2008 06:41:00 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The speed of light and mass
