Re: space?

From: TomGee (lvlus_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 01/18/05 

Date: 17 Jan 2005 18:23:39 -0800

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> TomGee wrote:
> > Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> >
> >>TomGee wrote:
> >>
> >>>Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>TomGee wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> [snip]
>
>
> >>>>>>>We can see through them only because
> >>>>>>>it is the same dark matter/energy which scientists have note
> >>>>>>>exists but is invisible to us.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Make up your mind. Are they dark matter, dark energy, or both?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >
> > why did you think this question was relevant?
>
> Because dark matter and dark energy behave very differently
> (according to observations). So I wanted to know if you
> claim that both are the same in your model.
>
>
The same what? Do you ask if they are equivalent? I would think they
are interdependent similar to the way visible mass/energy are, but like
visible mass/energy, they are by no means the same thing. Why should
you think otherwise of dark matter/energy?

The principles of mass and of energy have been combined into one
principle, but that does not connote they are equivalent. E=mc^2 is
not really an equation denoting equivalence, as so many have come to
believe, it is a formula we use which explains the relationship between
mass and energy as an interdependent one and not one of equivalence.

> >>>>>The are both, according to current research.
> >>>>
> >>>>What current research says that dark energy consists of
> >>>>particles?
> >>>>
> >>>>
None, AFAIK. Why do you make such a claim?
> >
> > The same one you claim as "the most-accepted hypothesis"....
>
> That was supersymmetry. You are wrong: supersymmetry says
> in no way that dark energy consists of particles. Sorry
> that I didn't make myself clear below that I talked only
> about dark matter.

You misunderstood again: I never said that supersymmetry theory claims
dark energy is equivalent to dark matter.
>
>
> >>>You misunderstood again: Current research claims that dark
> >>>matter/energy exists.
> >>
> >>You said that according to current research, "The are both",
> >>probably meaning "They" here. I.e. you said that according
> >>to current research, your proposed particles are both
> >>dark matter and dark energy.
> >>
> >>
You misunderstood again: I said only that space is comprised of dark
matter and dark energy. You have evidently a comprehension problem.

> >
> > So how was that relevant to the issue, Obfuscator?
>
SNIP
>
> I notice that instead of answering questions and providing
> references, you duck them and use insults. Yet again. Not
> surprising.
>
>
I answer all your relevant questions, while you don't. Therefore (Here
it comes again!!): Pot. Kettle. Black.

> >>>I claim dark matter is potential particles
> >>>comprising space which is negative matter having negative energy.
> >>>Do
> >>>you have a better idea of what dark matter/energy is/are?
> >>
> >>The most-accepted hypothesis is that it consists of
> >>supersymmetric partners of the normal particles. Do you
> >>have any idea of supersymmetry?
> >
> >
> > Don't turn your nose up at me, ***, your ivory tower is built
of
> > *** - bull***, that is, and you grovel in it using the same
arguments
> > used by those who once ridiculed the great ideas. I suppose people
> > like you are valuable to Mankind somehow, but it's hard to keep in
mind
> > why.
>
> Nice way of saying "No, I have no clue of supersymmetry."
>
>
You're the one who has no clue. You don't even know why the theory was
proposed.

> >>Another proposal is axions, AFAIK.
> >>
> >>If you don't think that this is a "better idea", please
> >>explain in detail why, and also why you think that thousands
> >>of people who have decades of their life thinking about
> >>that are all wrong, whereas you, who has almost no knowledge of
> >>particle physics at all, are the only one who is right.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > First of all, let me quote you: "> Read: "I can't answer this
> > argument, so I'll simply use > ridicule."
>
> So yet again, you don't even attempt to answer the question.
> No surprise.
>
>
Your comprehension problem is incredible! You have no clue what it
means when one starts out with, "First of all,....", nor what
"Secondly,..." means, nor what "Thirdly, ..." means.

> > Secondly, you are the one who thinks you are the only one who is
right,
> > not me.
>
> No, I do not think at all that I am the only one who is right.
> Where did you get that strange idea from?
>
>
From: Pot. Kettle. Black, where else?

> > I throw my ideas along with the others in the same hat, but
> > not as being the only ones which are right.
>
> You sure behave as if you thought so.
>
>
According to your very subjective opinion, right?

> > Thirdly, I don't think the proposals you note above are better
ideas
> > than mine because of one, their complexity compared to the
simplicity
> > of mine (which conforms to Occam's Razor),
>
> Supersymmetry may look mathematically complex at first sight
> - but it is a very simple, very appealing idea as soon as
> one has understood the reasoning behind it.
>
>
Yeah, right. Then why don't you understand it if it's so simple?

> > and two, supersymmetry is
> > just a theory which proposes a type of symmetry that would apply to
all
> > elementary particles
>
> Right so far.
>
>
> > as a GUT
>
> Wrong. Supersymmetry has not much to do with a GUT.
>
>
Idiot. "One type of GUT contains a theory called supersymmetry (SUSY),
first suggested in 1971."
Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.

> > and thus why should it have anything to
> > do with our subject?
>
> *sigh* Because supersymmetric partners of the ordinary
> particles are proposed as the Dark Matter. As I already said.
>
>
Well, you just show us where you got that from, since what I've read
about SUSY is that it posits very specific rules of particle
interactions. It claims that while particles have partner
antiparticles which are fermions or bosuns the same as the particle,
SUSY partners should be a fermion and a bosun. Now, my model does not
rule out that SUSY antiparticles may be dark matter, but I want to read
where it clearly states that, for my own reference.

> > and three, such superpartner particle as well as
> > axions have not yet been found.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
> >>>>Anyway, if they have negative mass, they should repel
> >>>>ordinary matter gravitationally (according to Newton's
> >>>>law of gravitation). But what is observed is that the dark
> >>>>matter *attracts* ordinary matter.
> >>>>
> >>>>
No, what is observed is that the effects are similar to gravitation
effects, but I have not yet found where it states that the effect is
one of attraction and not repulsion. It seems reasonable to think that
if invisible matter/energy in some ways acts opposite to the way
visible matter/energy acts, it is possible that dark matter/energy
repels visible matter/energy.

> >>>
> >>>I thought you believed in curved space, not gravitation.
> >>
> >>1) Curved space (or, better, curved spacetime) is just
> >>another name for gravitation, essentially.
> >
> >
> > Except that gravitation is real while s-t is fiction, a math
construct.
>
> Unsupported assertion.
>

Not unsupported at all. I have already explained well that assertion.

> Please explain why GR is able to explain the observations
> so well.
>
>
Oh, have you been able to observe GR's s-t? Publish your empirical
evidence and become rich and famous, why doncha?

> >>Or what do you
> >>think why General Relativity is called a theory of gravitation?
> >
> >
> > GR was claimed to have overthrown classical gravitation.
>
> Depends on what you mean by "overthrown" exactly. It still
> contains classical gravitation as a limiting case.
>
>
> > It claimed
> > that there is no gravitation, only curved space.
>
> No. Why do you think so?
>
>
Because that is what I was taught above GR. I still run across that
same inanity from time to time. I do not agree that GR overthrew
classical physics as far as Newton was able to go, especially with the
silly notion of curved space.

> > When did you put out
> > your edict to erase that history and put up a new one?
>
> Where did you get this strange idea of the history of GR?
>
>
> >>2) On such large scales, Newtonian gravity and GR give essentially
> >>the same results, so it's irrelevant which one we use to address
> >>your claim. GR says the same: things with negative mass/energy
> >>should attract.
> >
> >
As I said, show us where it says exactly that, as I have not read where
it uses the term of attraction specifically as opposed to repulsion.
It implies attraction by use of the term "gravitation", which is
attraction wrt visible matter, but it fails to understand that with
invisible matter it may be that gravitation is not attraction but
repulsion instead.

> > As far as classical physics goes, GR is simply another explanation
of
> > gravitation,
>
> Well, that's just what I said above. You claimed that I
> am wrong, that GR is *not* a description of gravitation.
> Merely of curved space.
>
>
No, I said that it has been claimed that curved space theory has
replaced classical gravitation. My point is that GR is nothing more
than a description of gravitation but it calls gravitation "curved
space" and states that they is no such thing as gravitation.

> > so it has to give the same results where results can be
> > compared.
>
> Indeed. So we have now: both GR and Newtonian mechanics
> say that things with negative mass should repel things
> with positive mass (sorry for my fumble above, where I
> accidentally wrote "attract"). So your claim that dark
> matter consists of things with negative mass contradicts
> the observations that dark matter attracts ordinary matter.
>
>
> >>>Any port in a
> >>>storm, eh? Anyway, repulsion or attraction, how can one
> >>>tell if one
> >>>cannot see that which is causing the effects we observe?
> >>
> >>By observing the rotation curves of galaxies and the
> >>motion of galaxies in clusters, we see that dark matter
> >>has an *attractive* force on other matter.

No, you don't see that at all, you just imagine that. It could be that
since there is maybe ten times the amount of dark matter compared to
visible matter, the effect of gravitation of dark matter is not
attraction but repulsion. No one thought about that so no one thought
to pursue the answer, but you have decided that gravitational effects
from dark matter are the same as from visible matter, but why should
they be?

> >>Hey, that was
> >>the reason why dark matter was originally proposed - that
> >>there is more attractive force than can be explained by the
> >>observed matter!
> >>
> >
> > No, dark matter was originally proposed to explain conflicts due to
the
> > amount of observable matter in the U.
>
> And this conflict was seen in the rotation curves of galaxies
> and the motion of galaxies in clusters first, just as I said. Try
> looking here:
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9904251
>
>
Ok, but that came later after it was proposed that there should be more
visible matter in the U. to account for the huge amounts of gravitation
required to first cause the coming together of visible matter and then
to hold the amount of visible matter in galaxies together.
>
>
SNIP
> >>So things with negative mass are ruled out for dark matter
> >>- unless you want to modify Newton's law of gravity?
> >>(and as well GR)
> >>
> >>
You just had not thought that gravitation may act differently for
invisible matter than for visible matter. You see, Bjoern, I am not a
Lemming, but you are, and so long as you are that, you can never have
an original thought of your own.
> >
> [snip]
>
> >>>Anyway, why is it that you
> >>>cannot see a difference between less-than-zero CHARGE and
> >>>less-than-zero MASS/ENERGY?
> >>
> >>Are we talking about mathematical or physical differences
> >>here?
> >>
> >>
SNIP
> If you have not noticed: "less-than-zero" is a math construct.
>
>
Yes, well, we are not talking about either, we are talking about charge
being a property and about mass and energy having states of visibility
and invisiblility. My contention is that positive mass is visible and
it contains potential energy the amount of which depends on its mass,
while negative mass contains potential negative energy which depends
upon the level of stability of the mass.
>
>
> >>>>But this agreement is an outdated picture. No particle physicist
> >>>>today
> >>>>believes anymore that these states with less-than-zero energy
> >>>>exists.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>That's debatable and subjective,
> >>
> >>The consensus of tens of thousands of particle physicists,
> >>arrived at after years or even decades of discussion, is
> >>"debatable and subjective"? Interesting world view.
> >>
> >>
> > No. What's debatable is your unsupported statement about what
particle
> > physicists believe anymore.
>
> Try reading some textbooks on particle physics and Quantum
> Field Theory.
>
> I recommend e.g. section 3.5 of the book "An Introduction to
> Quantum Field Theory" by Peskin&Schroeder, where it is
> discussed in great detail that particles have only
> positive energies. You will find similar sections in all
> other books on QFT.
>
>
If you have read them, why not use their arguments against mine?
Surely their great minds can help you overthrow my ideas?
TomGee
SNIP