what's Dark Matter to you?

[laptop]

There's nothing magical about it.

Indeedy. The answer to most "why" questions at the quantul level is "because it can" or "everything that it not forbidden is inevitable". Virtual particles, for example, appear "because" Heisenberg's Uncertainy Principle says that there's nothing to stop them appearing.

by... proposing fabulous mechanisms to explain things that are already well explained, you are being no more scientific than religion.

I had a quick look at the website and it basically is quasi-religion - our word-salad-monger is in search of a First Cause, a "why" for everything... and invoking trendy-sounding bits of physics to justify calling it the "nonlocal vortical cause".

Actually, it looks like Rupert Sheldrake's "morphic resonance" dressed up for a job interview.

 

[merlin wood]

There's nothing magical about it. The mechanisms by which atoms form molecules are well understood and stand up to repeated experiments. The formation of complex molecules fits in perfectly with the models we have. It's amazing that such simple rules can produce such fabulous complexity, but the reasoning can be followed through all the way. Look at the weather. Unpredictable and full of forms and behaviours. But with our knowledge of how it workds, we can build models that behave in exactly the same way.QUOTE]

But then I'm not talking about how but about how there can be any atoms or molecules (or, indeed, subatomic particles given that hey're made of energy) at all. So you have this hugely powerful force of electromagnetism acting between electrons and between electrons and protons and nothing to explain how matter is and can remain in any form while this force acts as it can be measured.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle can't explain this because it's just a mathematical principle. It's like saying Kepler's laws explain the orbital motion of moons and planets so why bother about Newton and gravity?

You can produce anatomical models as complex as you like to explain how the human body works but this doesn't explain how its subatomic parts can be organised into a human body.

I am not, repeat not sidestepping the scientific method by proposing fabulous mechanisms. I am proposing that a quite different kind of scientific method is needed to explain how the natural organisation of matter is possible, but, like constructing any other sientific theory, only by carefully considering together enough experimental and other ordinary and confirmable natural evidence.

Newton couldn't clearly demonstrate that gravity exists just by pointing to any experiments but, only by deveveloping an appropriate hypothesis, and then relating the observations of bodies in orbital motion to the experimental evidence of objects that aren't in orbital motion.

I'm saying that the only ordinary experimental evidence we have of a cause acting in addition to the forces is that of quantum quantum and particle. But, only given the development of an appropriate quantum hypothesis, can this evidence be related to observations on the large scale can it be shown that and how a cause acts in addition to the forces.

So the findings of quantum and particle physics provide more than enough experimental evidence, but by considering any of this alone it cannot be clearly shown that or how any further cause affects matter or energy.

 

[merlin wood]

There's nothing magical about it. The mechanisms by which atoms form molecules are well understood and stand up to repeated experiments. The formation of complex molecules fits in perfectly with the models we have. It's amazing that such simple rules can produce such fabulous complexity, but the reasoning can be followed through all the way. Look at the weather. Unpredictable and full of forms and behaviours. But with our knowledge of how it workds, we can build models that behave in exactly the same way.

But then I'm not talking about how atoms form molecules but about how there can be any atoms or molecules (or, indeed, subatomic particles given that hey're made of energy) of any form at all. So you have this hugely powerful force of electromagnetism acting between electrons and between electrons and protons and nothing to explain how matter is and can remain in any form while this force acts as it can be measured.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle can't explain this because it's just a mathematical principle. It's like saying Kepler's laws explain the orbital motion of moons and planets so why bother about Newton and gravity?

You can produce anatomical models as complex as you like to explain how the human body works but this doesn't explain how its subatomic parts can be organised into a human body.

I am not, repeat not sidestepping the scientific method by proposing fabulous mechanisms. I am proposing that a quite different kind of scientific method is needed to explain how the natural organisation of matter is possible, but, like constructing any other sientific theory, only by carefully considering together enough experimental and other ordinary and confirmable natural evidence.

Newton couldn't clearly demonstrate that gravity exists just by pointing to any experiments but, only by deveveloping an appropriate hypothesis, and then relating the observations of bodies in orbital motion to the experimental evidence of objects that aren't in orbital motion.

I'm saying that the only ordinary experimental evidence we have of a cause acting in addition to the forces is that of particle and quantum physica and chemistry. But, only given the development of an appropriate quantum hypothesis, can this evidence be related to observations on the large scale can it be shown that and how a cause acts in addition to the forces.

So the findings of matter and radiant energy on the smallest scale provide more than enough experimental evidence, but by considering any of this alone it cannot be clearly shown that or how any further cause affects matter or energy.

 

[laptop]

I am not, repeat not sidestepping the scientific method by proposing fabulous mechanisms. I am proposing that a quite different kind of scientific method is needed...

And a quite different kind of logic, as well...

 

[merlin wood]

Indeedy. The answer to most "why" questions at the quantul level is "because it can" or "everything that it not forbidden is inevitable". Virtual particles, for example, appear "because" Heisenberg's Uncertainy Principle says that there's nothing to stop them appearing.

I had a quick look at the website and it basically is quasi-religion - our word-salad-monger is in search of a First Cause, a "why" for everything... and invoking trendy-sounding bits of physics to justify calling it the "nonlocal vortical cause".

Actually, it looks like Rupert Sheldrake's "morphic resonance" dressed up for a job interview.

This is just complete , utter and unadulterated dog's poo. Actually you'll finding nothing about religion that is not already in your head.

So in fact you'll find this account is just about how you can, by examining together enough ordinary natural evidence, sufficiently justify and describe or represent details of a cause that can only be described from its effects as it acts constantly in addition to the forces. And hence it's a lot more scientific that superstring or cosmic inflation theory, for example, and is as explanatory as quantum field theory is obfuscating.

This theory of a form conserving cause and its effects can be related to Sheldrake's formative causation theory only because, as a scientist, Sheldrake also realises that there is nothing in orthodox physics that explains how matter can be in any form at all, includng that of living organisms.

 

[merlin wood]

And a quite different kind of logic, as well...

Not so at all while the Copenahagen interpretation of quatum mechanics is just illogical.

 

[Crispy]

So in fact you'll find this account is just about how you can, by examining together enough ordinary natural evidence, sufficiently justify and describe or represent details of a cause that can only be described from its effects as it acts constantly in addition to the forces. And hence it's a lot more scientific that superstring or cosmic inflation theory, for example, and is as explanatory as quantum field theory is obsuring.

Your hypothesis will be scientific when it can be used to make quantative predictions about the observable world. Spinning vortices in other dimensions are all well and good, but please tie this into real-world observations. I don't see any evidence of this. I see plenty of conjecture and "well if maybe this, then maybe this and that" . I also see some very weird sentance structre that makes the whole shebang a difficult read.

 

[angry bob]

According to string theory there are more than the "normal" 4 dimensions which we are familiar with. Theories suggest that there could be 10 or 11 dimensions: the dimensions which we can't see exist everywhere but are "curled" up really small so we can't see them.

String theory, in my humble opinion, is a misguided attempt to hold onto calculus, when in all likelihood, calculus is merely an approximation.

so there!

 

[merlin wood]

Your hypothesis will be scientific when it can be used to make quantative predictions about the observable world. Spinning vortices in other dimensions are all well and good, but please tie this into real-world observations. I don't see any evidence of this. I see plenty of conjecture and "well if maybe this, then maybe this and that" . I also see some very weird sentance structre that makes the whole shebang a difficult read.

The vortical causation is valid, because as i say, if universalised so that it pervades all space as an indefinite number of causes via reflection from a additional dimenion of space, it can cause all the properties that can be described of quantum wave behaviour. That is if this spherical ouwardly expanding vortex is related to the theory of the very early umiverse as its contents spiralled outwards in all directions against the inwardly acting force of its own gravity..

So a vorical cause such as a whirpool can produce a spiralling wave form of motion in objects if observed laterally like the paths of electrons and circularly polarised light, and a universalised spherical vortical causation could also produce plain polarisation.

Just as radiation reduces on energy with increasing wave length so did the expanding cosmos reduce in energy density with increasing diametre. You can also postulate that the speed of light is a universal constant because the early cosmos expanded at this speed.

Also, because the causal vortices are all interconnected these can be triggered instanteously by particles travellling through this causal medium. So that this tiggering produces a quantum wave that can be extended indefinitely in space around each particle, as is consistent with the de Broglie-Bohm causal interpretation of quantum mechanics.

 

[Crispy]

The vortical causation is valid, because as i say, if universalised so that it pervades all space as an indefinite number of causes via reflection from a additional dimenion of space, it can cause all the properties that can be described of quantum wave behaviour. That is if this spherical ouwardly expanding vortex is related to the theory of the very early umiverse as its contents spiralled outwards in all directions against the inwardly acting force of its own gravity..

That's just too fuzzy. "Related" ? How? In what way does the (supposed) spinning nature of the early universe (are there any observations that confirm this?) affect the micro-scale rotation of your vortices? Where's the maths? What experiment could I do to confirm your hypothesis?

I'm being hard on you because your writings do not read like science, they read like a more well-informed verion of "The Time Cube" and other 'wacky' internet theories.

 

[merlin wood]

That's just too fuzzy. "Related" ? How? In what way does the (supposed) spinning nature of the early universe (are there any observations that confirm this?) affect the micro-scale rotation of your vortices? Where's the maths? What experiment could I do to confirm your hypothesis?

I'm being hard on you because your writings do not read like science, they read like a more well-informed verion of "The Time Cube" and other 'wacky' internet theories.

The experimental evidence of quantum wave interference and diffraction themselves support this hypothesis of a vorticle causation. While in my theory this hypothesis is itself supported by relating it both to Big Bang cosmological theory and the astronomical evidence. I am unable to do the maths mydelf and so am awaiting a cosmologist to take this theoryseriousl enough to do the measurement and mathematical calculations that I'm sure will support the argument.

 

[Crispy]

Okay, let's break it down.

1. What is the evidence for the universe rotating as it expands?

 

[laptop]

"The Time Cube"

 

[Azrael23]

To me its just the presence of other levels of frequency like the etheric, astral, mental plane etc.

But i`m a whacko.

 

[Crispy]

To me its just the presence of other levels of frequency like the etheric, astral, mental plane etc.

But i`m a whacko.

Aintcha just

 

[merlin wood]

Okay, let's break it down.

1. What is the evidence for the universe rotating as it expands?

I never said that the early universe was rotating but that its contents were spiralling outwards in all directions.

This cosmos would possess a hell of a lot of mass and therefore possess a great amount of gravitational attraction so how else could it expand other than by its contents spiralling out like a space vehicle spiralling out from the Earth against its gravitational attraction?

Unless of course you believe in cosmic inflation, which envisages the cosmos expanding at faster than the speed of light. But there's no definite evidence that inflation occurred or any explanation of how the cosmos could have stopped inflating and it can't be sufficiently justified by any experimentally supported particle theory.

While I've found that non-local causation could explain the general features of the observable universe without any faster than light phase and that this inflation theory was developed to explatn (although you won't find this explation on my cosmicmind2003 website).

 

[Crispy]

I never said that the early universe was rotating but that its contents was spiralling outwards in all directions.

This cosmos would possess a hell of a lot of mass and therefore possess a great amount of gravitational attraction so how else could it expand other than by its contents spiralling out like a space vehicle spiralling out from the Earth against its gravitational attraction?

Well, the main reason (interplanetary) rockets spiral outwards from the earth is because the earth itself is rotating, plus the limited thrust of our engines. The quickest way out of a gravity well from a standing start, given enough energy, is just head straight up, full throttle. Overcoming gravity is just a case of putting plenty of energy in. Given that at the very early stage of the big bang, things were so close together that the three 'small-scale' forces vastly overpowerd gravity, so expanding the universe greatly (the general gist of it). There's no need for rotation, there's plenty of energy for a straight up escape.

 

[merlin wood]

i crispy: Well, the main reason (interplanetary) rockets spiral outwards from the earth is because the earth itself is rotating.

Simply not true at all, ask any physicist, its just ordinary newtonian principles. Probably the only thing that could move straight outards from he Earth would be light because it has virtually no mass while the mass and density od the very early cosmos was probably sufficient for even radiation to spiral outwards, And can you give the calculations that say that the forces would be sufficient for the contents of the cosmos to move straight outwards?

as i say i need a cosmologist to calculate sich things. but the fact is that a spherical vortical early cosmos universalised as a causation just happens to explain all the properties of wave behaviour as detected by experiment and described by quantum mechanics.

 

[Crispy]

i crispy: Well, the main reason (interplanetary) rockets spiral outwards from the earth is because the earth itself is rotating.

Simply not true at all, ask any physicist, its just ordinary newtonian principles. Probably the only thing that could move straight outards from he Earthwould be light, and you can't prove that the energy of forces was sufficient to move particles straight outwards.

Shit, you're so right
I'll get my coat. I still think your ideas are strange though...

 

[merlin wood]

Shit, you're so right
I'll get my coat. I still think your ideas are strange though...

Yup and so were Newton's ideas in his day.

 

[Crispy]

Yup and so were Newton's ideas in his day.

Nobody remembers the 999 other crazy ideas of Newton's time that turned out to be wrong...

 

[merlin wood]

Nobody remembers the 999 other crazy ideas of Newton's time that turned out to be wrong...

Yes and including some of newton's own ideas apparently since he was into astrology. But then no such ideas were closely justified by the observable and experimental natural evidence like his theory of gravity and principles of motion, and also like my own theory.

Although strictly speeking perhaps mine should only called a hypothesis until it is supported by measurement and calculation.

 

[laptop]

how else could it expand other than by its contents spiralling out like a space vehicle spiralling out from the Earth against its gravitational attraction?

This is the "I cannot imagine" argument: one which informs those few who are interested about the speaker's imagination, but does no more.

How it can do that is for space to be expanding.

Inflation is one scenario that makes this idea rather plain, but by no means the only possibility. Quantum Loop Gravity will, I feel, before too long have quite a lot to say about this. With actual maths.

 

[merlin wood]

This is the "I cannot imagine" argument: one which informs those few who are interested about the speaker's imagination, but does no more.

How it can do that is for space to be expanding.

Inflation is one scenario that makes this idea rather plain, but by no means the only possibility. Quantum Loop Gravity will, I feel, before too long have quite a lot to say about this. With actual maths.

Loop quantum gravity desn't sound very promising according to wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity

which now lists 14 different theories. Jim Bggott in his book Beyond Measure(OUP) reckons the reason why a successful theory of quantum gravity is a basic conceptual conflict between quantum field theory and relativity.

[edited to read:]which now lists 14 different theories of quantum gravity.
Jim Bggott in his book Beyond Measure(OUP) reckons the reason why a successful theory of quantum gravity has not been developed is a basic conceptual conflict between quantum field theory and relativity.
-----------------------------------------------------
Also, there have been claims that a successful quantum gravity theory will finally explain everything. But then quantum field theory doesn't solve everything on the smallest scale and ceratainly not quantum wave. spin and entanglement. So why should a successfull theory of gravity that's based on quantum field theory explain it all?

 

[Diem K]

String theory, in my humble opinion, is a misguided attempt to hold onto calculus, when in all likelihood, calculus is merely an approximation.

so there!

Fair enough. But that doesn't mean anything with reference to the question of dark matter.

Your comment regarding string theory/calculus/approximation may or may not be right. The correctness of the mathematical tools we have available does'nt mean there are no additional dimensions.

I reckon that's where the dark matter could be.

 

[merlin wood]

Fair enough. But that doesn't mean anything with reference to the question of dark matter.

Your comment regarding string theory/calculus/approximation may or may not be right. The correctness of the mathematical tools we have available does'nt mean there are no additional dimensions.

I reckon that's where the dark matter could be.

I say given further spatial dimensions then you don't need dark matter (or energy) because such dimensions have their own nonlocally acting cause that can produce all the observable effects assributed to dark matter and energy. Think a cause that produces the particular form of the cosmos both on the smallest and cosmic scale

 

[J77]

Yup and so were Newton's ideas in his day.

Qu: what do people mean by "straight" and "spiralling" ???

 

[J77]

 

[merlin wood]

Qu: what do people mean by "straight" and "spiralling" ???

Suppose you could watch a photon moving vertically away from the Earth for a second in time. The angle that your view would change would just be more or less the same as the angle that the Earth would rotate in one second, although there would be a very slight disparity due to bending caused by the Earth's gravity.

Whereas if you watch a space ship tarvelling at escape velocity out from a verticle take off to the same distance theat the photon travelled you'll find that the ship would need to spiral out to the extent that it would circle the Earth several times before it reached a distance of 186,000 miles or 300.000 kilometres.

 

[Crispy]

Suppose you could watch a photon moving vertically away from the Earth for a second in time. The angle that your view would change would just be more or less the same as the angle that the Earth would rotate in one second, although there would be a very slight disparity due to bending caused by the Earth's gravity.

Whereas if you watch a space ship tarvelling at escape velocity out from a verticle take off to the same distance theat the photon travelled you'll find that the ship would need to spiral out to the extent that it would circle the Earth several times before it reached a distance of 186,000 miles or 300.000 kilometres.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that just because a photon travels much much much much faster? What would happen if you were comparing photons and rockets taking off from a stationary planet, out in the wilderness of intergalactic space, for instance?