Monoatomic Gold Theory

[John Cuthber]

17 hours ago, Yetikick said:

I also like the theory that monatomic particles could in fact be dark matter.

You don't know what the word "theory" means in the context of science, do you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

This idea is no more a scientific theory than saying monatomic gold is unicorn droppings.

Incidentally, whether pseudoscience likes it or not, we do actually know about the properties of monatomic gold.

People make light bulbs that rely on monatomic gold.

http://www.perkinelmer.com/product/lumina-hollow-cathode-2-lamp-au-n3050107

albeit, for rather esoteric purposes.

 

One thing we know is that it's only available at high temperatures, in a vacuum.

[Strange]

57 minutes ago, Yetikick said:

Is this very theoretical though.

Do you know what that word means?

57 minutes ago, Yetikick said:

Dark matter science is pretty poor being that we aren’t technological enough to even detect it yet?

We have detected it, indirectly. And we know a lot about it.

You seem to confuse "not knowing everything" with "not knowing anything". It took years to detect Neptune (also only originally known by its gravitational effects). It took decades to detect neutrinos "directly" (originally only known because of "missing energy").

And this is kind of inevitable. If it was easy to detect dark matter, we would have known about it already. We have already discovered all the "easy stuff". 

But it is not clear what directly detecting something means in this context. We don't really directly detect neutrinos (we observe flashes of light caused by other particles they create, or other "indirect" methods). Once you start looking for subatomic particles, all detection is indirect. So, "directly" detecting dark matter particles (if they exist) will tell us more about its properties. But we already know quite a lot.

1 hour ago, Yetikick said:

i think the point in trying to make is there’s a lot we have yet to discover.

Of course. But that doesn't reduce what we know currently. 

1 hour ago, Yetikick said:

once upon a time Einstein’s theories were totally accepted and we now know that this is no longer the case in some respects.

Really? Citation very much needed. I must have missed the world-wide headlines that would have appeared if this were the case.

1 hour ago, Yetikick said:

we simply have such little knowledge on things like dark matter that in time what we believe now may I fact end up being totally wrong

Who is this "we"? Do you mean "I"?

And it is very unlikely that much of what we currently know will turn out to be wrong. I can only think of two examples of scientific theories, in the history of science that have turned out to be completely wrong. 

 

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Yetikick said:

Is this very theoretical though. Dark matter science is pretty poor being that we aren’t technological enough to even detect it yet?

i think the point in trying to make is there’s a lot we have yet to discover. I generally agree with science as it stands right now but then again once upon a time Einstein’s theories were totally accepted and we now know that this is no longer the case in some respects.

we simply have such little knowledge on things like dark matter that in time what we believe now may I fact end up being totally wrong, or correct for that matter.

ill always remain open to new ideas and theories, even some that are far fetched. Ok maybe not as far fetched as the crap Hudson says is possible.

Like the OP, this post is riddled with silly assumptions and even sillier mistakes.....

Firstly, we have known for quite a while now that science/cosmology has seen the need for some apparently unseen matter which we now call DM. Check out Fritz Zwicky around the early 1930's. Since then we have seen plenty of evidence of DM, not the least being "the bullet cluster"  observation and gravitational lensing by DM.

Secondly Einstein's theories actually are far more accepted now then they ever were, simply because they have continued aligning with experimental results and observations, and continue making successful predictions. Have you heard of gravitational waves?

Thirdly, you seem rather confused as to what a scientific theory really is and what it entails. They can be modified, added to and continually reinforced by further evidence as per Einstein's theories which you appear to have no idea about.  

Fourthly I really think that what "knowledge" you apparently believe you do have re the OP and DM , has been gathered from tabloid press headlines, questionable u tube videos and other less then reputable wells of knowledge.

[Phi for All]

14 minutes ago, beecee said:

Fourthly I really think that what "knowledge" you apparently believe you do have re the OP and DM , has been gathered from tabloid press headlines, questionable u tube videos and other less then reputable wells of knowledge.

I've seen this so many time in the last decade here. Popular science tries to make discoveries exciting for those who don't already think science is exciting, and they often emphasize the wrong aspects. People who didn't study science in school read popular science and a vague pattern begins to emerge. They sort of get it, and their imagination starts supplying wishful patchwork explanations to stitch their knowledge together, which requires that science "not understand" much of what they're talking about. They get the idea that everyone can have their own theories that are just as valid as anyone else's. Eventually they stop reading anything that might correct their misassumptions, in favor of the melange of misunderstanding that follows their own internal "logic" and makes perfect sense to only them. 

[StringJunky]

37 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I've seen this so many time in the last decade here. Popular science tries to make discoveries exciting for those who don't already think science is exciting, and they often emphasize the wrong aspects. People who didn't study science in school read popular science and a vague pattern begins to emerge. They sort of get it, and their imagination starts supplying wishful patchwork explanations to stitch their knowledge together, which requires that science "not understand" much of what they're talking about. They get the idea that everyone can have their own theories that are just as valid as anyone else's. Eventually they stop reading anything that might correct their misassumptions, in favor of the melange of misunderstanding that follows their own internal "logic" and makes perfect sense to only them. 

It's a never-ending onslaught.   

[koti]

Alchemists reunite. That would be a cherry on top of all the pseudoscience floating on  the web these days. Or am I missing something and they are holding annual conventions already? 

By the way...aren’t metals mono atomic in a gaseous state? 

Edited April 27, 2018 by koti

[swansont]

20 hours ago, Yetikick said:

Totally agree it’s most likely crappy science, however a lot of crappy science from many moons ago ended up being true.

Such as?

20 hours ago, Yetikick said:

Plus we have no science to validate or dismiss this. So making a statement that it’s not undiscovered science is very non-scientific as you cannot prove that either.

No science to dismiss it? It's not inconsistent with well-tested theories? Seriously?

20 hours ago, Yetikick said:

i certainly don’t think monatomic particles are dark matter but then again stating dark matter doesn’t interact electromagnetically is also terrible science as we haven’t proven that yet either.

There is, in fact, evidence that dark matter does not interact electromagnetically.

20 hours ago, Yetikick said:

just as the OP said, it’s an interesting subject that probably needs some more research. Not sure why people are trying debunk the comments of the OP and myself as both of us have clearly stated that we don’t support these theories rather just interested in the subject of monatomic particles if there is some science related to them that we are presently unaware of.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There isn't even ordinary evidence here, so why would anyone bother? The idea is bunk, starting with the name. If these are mono-atomic, and do not form bonds, how can you see them?

[Chyeadarg]

On 11/17/2017 at 4:39 PM, Strange said:

meaningless claims on one side and science on the other.

Hmm well the science part in the link says ergs and Gauss are not connected. Call me old fashioned, but I thought when speaking of dipple moment A m^2=1000 erg/G.

 

[Strange]

7 hours ago, Chyeadarg said:

Hmm well the science part in the link says ergs and Gauss are not connected. Call me old fashioned, but I thought when speaking of dipple moment A m^2=1000 erg/G.

No it doesn't say they are "not connected". It says they are "completely different entities." Which is obviously true. One can always find ways to "connect" different quantities, but that doesn't stop them being different things.

Quote

• He repeatedly says that "there is 10¹⁸ ergs in one gauss".^[1] Ergs and gausses are units of completely different entities. An 'Erg' is a unit of energy equal to 100 nanojoules, while a 'Gauss' is a unit of magnetic flux density equal to 100 microteslas. As such, the statement makes absolutely no sense. He also mentions that the Earth's magnetic field is "several gauss", whereas in fact it is less than 1 gauss.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/ORMUS