Re: Entropy and the "big bang"
- From: "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 3 Nov 2005 18:10:52 -0800
TomGee wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > TomGee wrote:
> > > PD wrote:
> > > > TomGee wrote:
> > > > > PD wrote:
> > > > > > TomGee wrote:
> > > > > > > PD wrote:
> > > > > > > > TomGee wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I don't know what you mean by that, Wormley. If you're asking if it
> > > > > > > > > has attractive or repulsive gravitation, I opt for repulsive because
> > > > > > > > > that explains how DM could keep galaxies together and also explains the
> > > > > > > > > higher speeds of the outer stars in some galaxies.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Higher speeds mean higher centripetal accelerations. The stars are
> > > > > > > > traveling in orbits. Centripetal acceleration is defined as a=v^2/r.
> > > > > > > > Thus, the higher speeds of the outer stars mean higher centripetal
> > > > > > > > accelerations. Which direction, in your model, does this acceleration
> > > > > > > > point? And, following that question, in which direction would the force
> > > > > > > > responsible for that acceleration point?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What does all that have to do with repulsive or attractive DM?
> >
> > If you answer it, we'll be able to say something about the origin of
> > the force, don't you think?
> >
> >
> No, I think not. It is only another one of your obstructionist
> tactics.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > No answer, PD?
> >
> >
> Still no answer, PD?
No, I think not. It is only another one of your obstructionist tactics.
I will repeat the question however. Since the higher speeds of the
stars in their orbit about the galaxy is the effect that DM is
purported to explain, then what is the direction of the higher
centripetal acceleration that is associated with the effect that DM is
purported to explain? And then what is the direction of the force that
is the cause of the acceleration that is associated with the effect
that is purported to explain? That is, if DM is responsible for this
causal force, what direction does it apply this force upon the stars.
Surely your understanding of DM's effect on the stars is deep enough to
at least tell the *direction* of the influence.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Attractive gravitation would be the same as it is for positive
> > > > > > > > > matter/energy and intuitively, I would not expect to find that.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And why not?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I said it in the same sentence which you have quoted above, but
> > > > > > > apparently it is English too high for you to understand. I SAID why
> > > > > > > not when I said the word intuitively. That means you can infer I meant
> > > > > > > that it is counter-intuitive to believe DM is attractive.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > in·tu·i·tive [in t itiv]
> > > > > > > adjective
> > > > > > > 1. known automatically: known directly and instinctively, without
> > > > > > > being discovered or consciously perceived
> > > > > > > 2. knowing by instinct: knowing things instinctively
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -in·tu·i·tive·ly, adverb
> > > > > > > -in·tu·i·tive·ness, noun
> > > > > > > Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft
> > > > > > > Corporation. All rights reserved.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now, it's your turn to argue why you believe in something that is
> > > > > > > counter-intuitive having absolutely no reason to believe it and in fact
> > > > > > > having at least one good reason NOT to believe it? (Hint: That reason
> > > > > > > being that your argument is counter-intuitive).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On second thought, let's pursue it a little more.
> > > > > > For it to be intuitive, the ideas should hang together and they should
> > > > > > be able to be developed into larger and more clear ideas that are also
> > > > > > intuitive and consistent with data.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > No, all that is not necessary for something to be intuitive. Try to
> > > > > learn what the definition says and means. You're adding on stuff like
> > > > > you're the God of Words with the power to define words any way you
> > > > > wish. You're trying to bring the term into the realm of reality, but
> > > > > it does not go there. It has no force of logic or reason, only an
> > > > > explanation for believing a certain way. If it is your intuition that
> > > > > DM is attractive, give us your reason for that belief.
> > > >
> > > > OK, so let me see if I understand you right. An intuition provides an
> > > > explanation without logic or reason to it?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > No, you're still understanding it wrong. If it is your intuition that
> > > DM is attractive, give us your reason for that belief.
> >
> > I'm hung up on your idea of intuition. You said "...all that is not
> > necessary for something to be intuitive...It has no force of logic or
> > reason, only an explanation for believing a certain way."
> > An intuition provides an explanation without logic or reason to it?
> >
> >
> See my response to Don about this.
I did, thanks. Didn't find it to be helpful or illuminative, but I did
see it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What I mean by development is the
> > > > > > asking and answering of natural questions. If at some point the
> > > > > > questions don't have a sensible answer or one ends up with a
> > > > > > contradiction with your assumptions, then perhaps that's the time to
> > > > > > question whether the intuition is sound.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > You're confusing intuition with theory, suppositions, or hypotheses.
> > > > > Get real.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think so, but this isn't talking about physics, so let's go
> > > > on...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Whether you think so or not is not relevant since the evidence of your
> > > words proves that you do not understand what intuition means.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, allow me to ask a few questions that would naturally arise, in the
> > > > > > effort to develop your intuitive idea.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > My theory, you mean. My idea, my claim, my guess, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Certainly your claim, your guess, your idea. I don't know that it is a
> > > > theory until there is some development other than what you've offered
> > > > so far.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > So who made you the Decider of whether mine is a theory or not? And my
> > > ideas are no less intuitive than what is being offered in place today.
> > > My explanations are supported by the observed effects and do not
> > > contradict them. They contradict only those silly ideas that have been
> > > more easily accepted by those who fawn over the thoughts of their
> > > "mentors" no matter how nonsensical they may be. I have argued before
> > > about what constitutes a theory and what doesn't with dolts who want
> > > only to obscure or detract us from the issues involved.
> >
> > I see. So you have a different idea than others about what a "theory"
> > is, as well. But we digress. We were asking questions about physics and
> > about your ideas about what DM is and does. Let's stick with that and
> > not wander.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Since DM matter is repulsive to ordinary matter, it perhaps should
> > > > > > follow a law that is similar in form to the way that ordinary matter
> > > > > > attracts each other, except with a change of sign somewhere. Certainly
> > > > > > in order to account for the effects on ordinary matter that it's
> > > > > > presumed to have, we have to suppose *some* sort of law that describes
> > > > > > matter and dark matter interacting. What do you suppose the form of
> > > > > > that law would be?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > We don't know yet enough about DM to make any concrete claims about it.
> > > >
> > > > Then how does DM account for the effects on the outer stars in the
> > > > galaxy? It's your claim that you understand how DM does account for
> > > > that motion. How can it do that without "any concrete claims about it"?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > The same way you account for your claim of attraction - intuition.
> >
> > I'm sorry... Please account for, according to your intuition, for the
> > benefit for someone who does NOT share your intuition, how DM accounts
> > for the observed effects on the outer stars of the galaxy. In
> > particular, account for their higher-than-expected tangential
> > velocities.
> >
> >
> Whoa! Looks like you might have read up on it a little or had someone
> read my posts to you! Either way, good for you. Ok, but first you
> explain your belief that DM has an attractive force to it that accounts
> for the observed effects and can cause such tangential velocities.
> Time to pay the piper, PD, or 'fess up and grovel.
No, sir. The questions were about *your* model and how intuitive *your*
model is, and how logical the conclusions that follow from that
intuition are. Let's discuss what *your* model says and implies.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > If it is negative matter, it is tied to Pauli's Exclusion Principle,
> > > > > Dirac's extraordinary matter, and Gamow's negative matter ether.
> > > >
> > > > Explain how it is tied to those. So far, all you've said is three
> > > > catchphrases strung in a sentence.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Catchphrases are created by excessive use of certain terms. No one but
> > > me has mentioned those three phrases in these ngs recently, so I hardly
> > > think you can call them that. All you're really saying is that you
> > > have not read about them and you want me to do the work and tell you
> > > about it. Isn't that what you've accused me of?
> >
> > Then please provide a reference how DM is tied to Pauli's exclusion
> > principle, Dirac's extraordinary matter, and Gamow's negative matter
> > ether, so I can read further. If you are the only reference for the new
> > ideas, then please write down how these are tied together, so I can
> > read about that connection from the sole source of that connection.
> >
> >
> Get your mother to read my posts in this thread from the beginning
> where I explain all that. Or read my essay.
Gee, somehow I can't see any explanation in this thread explaining how
DM is tied to Pauli's exclusion principle, Dirac's extraordinary
matter, and Gamow's negative matter ether. Would you please care to cut
and paste what you think constituted that explanation.
I am reading your essay, by the way, almost done with it. I would love
to post it in pieces, with full attribution to you of course and with
your permission, so we could examine it in detail here. Do I have your
permission to do that?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > You're welcome to work on any laws of physics you think may apply to
> > > > > that, or to work up some new laws.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Yeah right. Do all the work for you.
> >
> > You are the one with the new ideas. I think it's your responsibility to
> > do that work.
You agree?
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's your theory (idea, guess, claim). I'm trying to see how worked out
> > > > or worked up it is in your mind.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Yeah, right.
> >
> > Yes, that's right.
> >
> >
> Shore it is.
Suddenly you're not interested in discussing your model. Why is that?
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > If I were you, though, I would wait
> > > > > til we can agree more on what it is we are observing, since we haven't
> > > > > gotten past that obstacle yet.
> > > >
> > > > Then by all means, cite the references that describe the observations.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > I have. I referred to Pauli, Dirac, and Gamow.
> >
> > Explicit references please. Pauli, Dirac, and Gamow wrote a lot of
> > things, and I'll need a pointer to find out where they described the
> > connection between DM and Pauli's exclusion principle, Dirac's
> > extraordinary matter, and Gamow's negative matter ether.
References, please?
> >
> > > Their ideas support an
> > > ether similar to my model and my model is based on their ideas. I have
> > > explained their ideas and how they relate to mine wrt the observed
> > > effects.
> >
> > You have? How? Where have you described how Pauli's exclusion principle
> > pertains to the motion of the outer stars of the galaxy? Where have you
> > described how or why Dirac's extraordinary matter repels ordinary
> > matter?
No answer, TomGee?
> >
> > > You, OTOH, have refused to give us your reason for
> > > intuitively holding the belief that DM is attractive.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. Since DM is repulsive to ordinary matter, how do you suppose dark
> > > > > > matter interacts with other dark matter?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > Good question. I don't think DM can interact with other DM simply
> > > > > because it lacks any positive energy to do so in the ways we define
> > > > > interactions. It could do so in a way we don't know about yet, but
> > > > > that idea will have to wait til we learn more.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sorry... So you're saying you have a theory that involves DM, but
> > > > you have no idea how DM aggregates would behave and you have no idea
> > > > how it interacts with itself?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Grasshopper, you don't know enough English to understand simple
> > > phrases. My explanation above as to why DM cannot interact with other
> > > DM IS my idea of how it "interacts with itself"!
> >
> > You said you "don't think DM can" interact with itself, but "it could
> > do so in a way we don't know yet." I suppose there's a big difference
> > between "cannot" and "could do so".
You don't see a problem here, Tom?
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You are also saying that DM cannot interact with DM because it lacks
> > > > the positive energy to do so,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Strange how you brain understands that but yet does not understand that
> > > as my idea of how DM behaves! Your brain seems unable to see that many
> > > ideas relate to each other.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > but this obstacle in no way prevents it
> > > > from interacting with ordinary matter?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Another "plain-English miscomprehension" lie. I have explained
> > > precisely how DM reacts to interactions with RM.
> >
> > I'll repeat the question. If DM cannot interact with DM because it
> > lacks the positive energy to do so, with what energy does it use to
> > interact with ordinary matter?
> >
> >
> I have explained that it uses the energy imparted to it by the RM
> interactions with it.
So ordinary matter's interaction with DM is what provides DM the energy
with which to interact with ordinary matter?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > SNIP
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Visible matter (don't be afraid to use that term) is attractive to
> > > > > itself because it has the force of gravitation that uses +energy as the
> > > > > power to attract. Since DM has no +energy, it should have no
> > > > > attractive force to itself nor to RM. As for being repulsive to
> > > > > itself, that would require some force to do that and unless it was some
> > > > > new type of "negative force" or neg. energy, it should not be repulsive
> > > > > to other DM.
> > > >
> > > > Why not? If this "negative force" can act from DM on ordinary matter,
> > > > then why can it not act on DM?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Another lie or miscomprehension. I have explained that no "negative
> > > force" exists and that DM cannot act on RM, but you seem incapable of
> > > remembering that.
> >
> > I'm sorry. You just said that DM cannot act on RM. You also said that
> > DM repels RM. What on earth are you talking about, TomGee?
> >
> >
> Yes, I said it does both. I think it repels RM whenever it has a force
> of motion with which to do so. When stationary, it has no force of
> repulsion, or attraction as you claim. Only when RM imparts +energy to
> it can it react.
OK, so let me see if I have this right. You have said that the motion
of the DM is like an unrolling carpet. So where the DM carpet is
"unrolled", if you will, then DM is no longer repelling ordinary
matter, and where it is still "unrolling" then DM does repel ordinary
matter. So in your view, there is a region of the universe where DM
interactions with ordinary matter are no longer in operation, and there
is a region of the universe where DM interactions with ordinary matter
are still in operation. Please correct me with the correct statement,
if I'm wrong about this.
> >
> >
> > Is this your
> > intuitive notion? Is this intuitive in the way that "I'm so happy, I'm
> > miserable" is an intuitive notion? Oh, wait, you said that was a
> > NON-intuitive notion.
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Moreover, is it necessarily true that a repulsive force in general is
> > > > due to "negative energy" or a "negative force"?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > See what I mean?
> >
> > No. It's a question. It has an answer that begins either "yes" or "no"
> > and is followed by an explanation.
> >
> >
> No, it's nonsense. I will try to get back to this, but I have to go.
Well, I have to say this is a nasty trend, TomGee. I asked you seven
questions, you started to give me partial answers to some of them, and
now you are down to talking about two of the questions. Pretty soon, I
fear, we'll not be talking about any of them, and we won't have any
better idea of your intuitive notion than when we began, because you
couldn't fully answer seven simple questions about it.
I get the feeling that, despite your having a model that explains
things more intuitively and naturally than the conventional model, you
don't really want to talk about your model.
PD
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. If DM attracts other DM, then is it reasonable to suppose that it
> > > > > > would clump up into DM galaxies the same way that ordinary matter does?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > I don't think it would be unreasonable to suppose that if it were
> > > > > determined that DM is attractive. Even if DM only repulses other DM,
> > > > > or even if it has no interactions under its own power, "clumping" is
> > > > > still possible.
> > > >
> > > > Explain how clumping is possible if DM repulses other DM.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > The "clumping" of galaxies is not necessarily or completely caused by
> > > DM. We believe it is primarily caused by attractive gravitation. The
> > > observations show DM may cause the secondary reactions from RM
> > > interactions with DM that we observe to occur only in certain cases.
> >
> > First of all, you said "Even if DM only repulses other DM, or even if
> > it has no interactions under its own power, 'clumping' is still
> > possible." I asked how this was possible. I was not talking about the
> > clumping of RM galaxies either in the original question 3, I don't
> > think you were talking about the clumping of RM galaxies in your
> > answer, and I was not talking about the clumping of RM galaxies in my
> > follow-up question. So I repeat the question, how is the clumping of DM
> > galaxies possible if DM repulses other DM?
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > My model has DM interacting with RM as a consequence
> > > > > of something occurring to DM as it is moved through absolute space by
> > > > > the impetus of the BB and unrolls itself into a stationary state.
> > > >
> > > > My question has to do with the interaction of DM with itself, not DM
> > > > with RM. Please stay on topic.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > I am staying on topic and having a hard time trying to make you stick
> > > to it.
> >
> > I asked you in question 3 how DM interacts with other DM, not how it
> > interacts with RM. You said in answer to question 3 that it is still
> > possible, even if DM does not interact with other DM or even if it only
> > repels other DM. That is the topic of question 3, Tom.
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Such
> > > > > a process can be described to be like water being pumped into a lake,
> > > > > where the impetus of the pump pushes the molecules of water into the
> > > > > lake where eventually that impetus is lost and that water becomes
> > > > > stationary wrt the water already in the lake. The impetus of the
> > > > > incoming molecules of water interact with those of the water already in
> > > > > the lake and Newton's 3rd law prevails.
> > > >
> > > > I don't understand the last statement about "Newton's 3rd law
> > > > prevails". What is the signaling condition that Newton's third law is
> > > > now prevailing?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > When we pour water into still water, the action creates actions
> > > described by the 3rd law.
> >
> > Explain how the 3rd law describes what happens when we pour water into
> > still water.
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I suppose we can say that is
> > > > > one law that can be applied to DM interactions.
> > > >
> > > > And that law would be...?
> >
> > Answer?
> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The DM of the BB would have no +energy of its own, but it would have
> > > > > the +energy of the impetus given to it by the BB explosion. Just like
> > > > > we create extraordinary conditions
> > > >
> > > > I'm sorry...what's so extraordinary?
> > > >
> > > You are continually interrupting some of my statements with questions
> > > that are answered in the rest of my statement.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > of particle interactions with our
> > > > > particle accelerators, it is prudent to assume the same can happen for
> > > > > neg. mass/energy being hurled through absolute space. I would have DM
> > > > > interacting with itself during the periods of its outward motion due to
> > > > > the impetus given to it by the BB.
> >
> > I'm sorry...what's so extraordinary?
> >
> > > >
> > > > And that interaction... is it attractive or repulsive? What is the
> > > > nature of the interaction beyond just supposing that an interaction of
> > > > some sort is plausible?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > The interactions would be due to the factor of motion and that would
> > > cause action/reactions described by the 3rd law.
> >
> > Is it attractive or repulsive? Explain how the third law and actions
> > and reactions describe how it is attractive or repulsive.
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > That could occur at the beginning
> > > > > and continue even now in an ongoing process of universe-making.
> > > >
> > > > Elaborate...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > It has been supposed that matter formed shortly after the BB occurred
> > > and that new stars are being created even now from it. That makes no
> > > reference to DM, which may have something to do with the creation of RM
> > > since the observed effects show that there are interactions. The
> > > Inflationary Period (IP) was invented to account for the homogeneous
> > > distribution of elements throughout the observable universe. The IP is
> > > a theory without a cause, however,
> >
> > What makes you say that? The cause of the IP is well-documented by Alan
> > Guth, who proposed it. To the extent that I wish to describe it here,
> > it is due to the spontaneous symmetry breaking of the vacuum Higgs
> > field. Would you like a reference?
> >
> >
> > > so it may be more likely that the
> > > homogeneity of the universe was caused by something else. If RM is
> > > created by the motions of DM, that will explain the homogeneous
> > > distributin of matter as well if not better than the IP.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > We may argue that the expansion rate of the universe is currently
> > > > > increasing, which indicates that the impetus of the BB has not yet
> > > > > reached its maximum velocity, yet we already have a great deal of
> > > > > matter created. However, it is still far less than the supposed amount
> > > > > of DM in the universe. If RM is the result of motive DM interactions,
> > > >
> > > > "If", "if", "if". In your model, IS IT or IS IT NOT the result of
> > > > "motive DM interactions"? And if it IS, then what is the mechanism of
> > > > the creation of that ordinary matter by "motive DM interactions"?
> >
> > Answer?
> >
> > > >
> > > > > and the BB barely occurred (relatively speaking of course), we should
> > > > > think that the universe will eventually become larger at exponential
> > > > > rates than it is today.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > I will try to get back to finish the rest, but for now I must go.
> >
> > I would appreciate that.
> >
> > PD
.
- References:
- Re: Entropy and the "big bang"
- From: TomGee
- Re: Entropy and the "big bang"
- Prev by Date: Re: Demolition job needed on this theory of the cosmos - any volunteers?
- Next by Date: Re: Some astro questions
- Previous by thread: Re: Entropy and the "big bang"
- Next by thread: Re: Entropy and the "big bang"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
