zapatos Posted January 8 Posted January 8 4 hours ago, Paulsrocket said: Black holes contain mass and energy, the Earth is in orbit around one as is our Sun "One" what? A black hole?
Paulsrocket Posted January 8 Author Posted January 8 3 hours ago, exchemist said: Not true. We know dark matter is in galaxies, because it is the deviation in their rotation rates from what would be expected from the masses of the bright matter they contain (which we can estimate)that leads us to infer there is extra "dark" matter present. 2+2=4 except when examining the universe and 2+2=0.6 with 85% of the expected mass and energy missing. Which has theoretical physicist saying this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYAG9dAfy8U -3
swansont Posted January 8 Posted January 8 15 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: 2+2=4 except when examining the universe and 2+2=0.6 with 85% of the expected mass and energy missing. Grade-school algebra and cosmology are not really on equal footing. Do you have a substantive argument to make? 15 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: Which has theoretical physicist saying this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYAG9dAfy8U I’m not going to watch; what is the connection between dark matter and living in a simulation?
exchemist Posted January 8 Posted January 8 43 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: 2+2=4 except when examining the universe and 2+2=0.6 with 85% of the expected mass and energy missing. Which has theoretical physicist saying this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYAG9dAfy8U What has your idiotic response got to do with my reply to your question?
Paulsrocket Posted January 8 Author Posted January 8 14 minutes ago, swansont said: Grade-school algebra and cosmology are not really on equal footing. Do you have a substantive argument to make? I’m not going to watch; what is the connection between dark matter and living in a simulation? I never said that we are living in a simulation, however in the video Neil deGrasse Tyson says that this is a probability and that it is hard not to argue that reality is simulated. As for the connection between dark or any kind of matter for instance and a simulation the connection is clear as no matter is needed for a simulation other than the matter needed to run the simulation code. Which would explain the missing mass. 5 minutes ago, exchemist said: What has your idiotic response got to do with my reply to your question? My reply was to Swansont not to you
joigus Posted January 8 Posted January 8 2 hours ago, Phi for All said: Lots of science to study. Looks like some discrepancies, need new books, is this really true? Much easier to blow it all off as not worth it because of all the enigmas. Saves a LOT of time. The mechanisms of denial. Procrastination being but one aspect perhaps. In the end it's all one big shrugging gesture.
Genady Posted January 8 Posted January 8 3 minutes ago, joigus said: The mechanisms of denial. Procrastination being but one aspect perhaps. In the end it's all one big shrugging gesture. Sour grapes.
Paulsrocket Posted January 8 Author Posted January 8 3 hours ago, zapatos said: "One" what? A black hole? Indeed the center of the Milky Way is a black hole. At its heart—and the dominant force in that area of the galaxy—is a black hole approximately four million times the mass of the Sun, called Sagittarius A* (pronounced “Sagittarius A star”). Sorry but I really thought that this was common knowledge https://webbtelescope.org/contents/articles/what-is-the-center-of-our-galaxy-like#:~:text=At its heart—and the,“Sagittarius A star”).
Bufofrog Posted January 8 Posted January 8 1 hour ago, Paulsrocket said: Indeed the center of the Milky Way is a black hole. We are actually orbiting the galaxy's center of gravity. The SMBH near the center of the galaxy is exerting less gravitational pull on you than a car in your driveway. 1
zapatos Posted January 9 Posted January 9 3 hours ago, Paulsrocket said: Indeed the center of the Milky Way is a black hole. At its heart—and the dominant force in that area of the galaxy—is a black hole approximately four million times the mass of the Sun, called Sagittarius A* (pronounced “Sagittarius A star”). Sorry but I really thought that this was common knowledge https://webbtelescope.org/contents/articles/what-is-the-center-of-our-galaxy-like#:~:text=At its heart—and the,“Sagittarius A star”). It was your suggestion that the earth orbits around a black hole that threw me. ("Black holes contain mass and energy, the Earth is in orbit around one") Quote Earth orbits the Sun at an average distance of 149.60 million km (8.317 light minutes, 92.96 million mi)[1] in a counterclockwise direction as viewed from above the Northern Hemisphere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_orbit Sorry but I really thought that this was common knowledge.
exchemist Posted January 9 Posted January 9 13 hours ago, Paulsrocket said: My reply was to Swansont not to you No, it was to me. You must be confusing it with a different idiotic response.
swansont Posted January 9 Posted January 9 20 hours ago, Paulsrocket said: I never said that we are living in a simulation, however in the video Neil deGrasse Tyson says that this is a probability and that it is hard not to argue that reality is simulated. As for the connection between dark or any kind of matter for instance and a simulation the connection is clear as no matter is needed for a simulation other than the matter needed to run the simulation code. Which would explain the missing mass. So no matter is more believable than some matter? But the simulation is making you think this makes sense, so it’s all good, I guess
Paulsrocket Posted January 9 Author Posted January 9 7 hours ago, swansont said: So no matter is more believable than some matter? But the simulation is making you think this makes sense, so it’s all good, I guess I never said that I believe the universe is a simulation, theoretical physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson said that. 15 hours ago, exchemist said: No, it was to me. You must be confusing it with a different idiotic response. Well since you are interested, do you have any idea where the missing 85% of the universe labeled dark matter is hiding?
exchemist Posted January 9 Posted January 9 5 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: I never said that I believe the universe is a simulation, theoretical physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson said that. Well since you are interested, do you have any idea where the missing 85% of the universe labeled dark matter is hiding? I told you: in galaxies. The problem is what it consists of, not where it is.
Paulsrocket Posted January 9 Author Posted January 9 2 minutes ago, exchemist said: I told you: in galaxies. The problem is what it consists of, not where it is. Gravity is a function of mass, in order for gravity to be causing not only expansion but an increasing speed of expansion there is 85% too little mass to create the gravity for to be the fuel. Speculating on something that has never been observed is difficult, so do you have a theory as to what dark matter is, which would inexorably lead one to its location as well
zapatos Posted January 9 Posted January 9 14 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: in order for gravity to be causing not only expansion but an increasing speed of expansion... Gravity is not causing expansion or increasing speed of expansion. 15 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: Speculating on something that has never been observed is difficult It is not speculation. It is based on observation.
Paulsrocket Posted January 9 Author Posted January 9 38 minutes ago, zapatos said: Gravity is not causing expansion or increasing speed of expansion. It is not speculation. It is based on observation. What do you believe is causing the expansion and what are the observations of dark matter?
zapatos Posted January 9 Posted January 9 2 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: What do you believe is causing the expansion and what are the observations of dark matter? Before joining a science forum and making claims you should at least do a simple Google search. Even my grandkids know that gravity is an attractive force.
MigL Posted January 10 Posted January 10 (edited) 2 hours ago, Paulsrocket said: Gravity is a function of mass, in order for gravity to be causing not only expansion but an increasing speed of expansion there is 85% too little mass to create the gravity for to be the fuel. In the second Friedman equation for the scale factor of universal expansion, the indication is that energy density and pressure ( as in the equation of state of an ideal fluid/gas ) are the governing factors. Positive energy density and positive pressure decelerate expansion. Alternatively, large negative pressure ( due Dark Energy acting like a fluid with a negative parameter in its equation of state ) will cause expansion to accelerate. The above is available here Expansion of the universe - Wikipedia Nowhere in the Friedman equations, nor in Einstein's equations for GR, is mass a determinant for expansion, or gravity, as you state ( see bolded, by me, in the quote ) Edited January 10 by MigL
swansont Posted January 10 Posted January 10 2 hours ago, Paulsrocket said: I never said that I believe the universe is a simulation, theoretical physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson said that. You introduced it as somehow being a consequence of the notion of dark matter - you suggested it’s a clear connection. If it’s not your position, why bring it up?
Paulsrocket Posted January 10 Author Posted January 10 48 minutes ago, MigL said: In the second Friedman equation for the scale factor of universal expansion, the indication is that energy density and pressure ( as in the equation of state of an ideal fluid/gas ) are the governing factors. Positive energy density and positive pressure decelerate expansion. Alternatively, large negative pressure ( due Dark Energy acting like a fluid with a negative parameter in its equation of state ) will cause expansion to accelerate. The above is available here Expansion of the universe - Wikipedia Nowhere in the Friedman equations, nor in Einstein's equations for GR, is mass a determinant for expansion, or gravity, as you state ( see bolded, by me, in the quote ) There are no equations that explain the expansion of the universe until 85% more mass is found. Einsteins equations actually predicted a static universe, and Einstein maintained this until Hubble proved him wrong
MigL Posted January 10 Posted January 10 A static universe is NOT stable. Einstein originally included a Cosmological Constant term to his equations, which he later removed. "Einstein originally introduced the constant in 1917[2] to counterbalance the effect of gravity and achieve a static universe, a notion that was the accepted view at the time. Einstein's cosmological constant was abandoned after Edwin Hubble's confirmation that the universe was expanding.[3] From the 1930s until the late 1990s, most physicists agreed with Einstein's choice of setting the cosmological constant to zero.[4] That changed with the discovery in 1998 that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, implying that the cosmological constant may have a positive value" From Cosmological constant - Wikipedia The CC turns out to be a valid concept, and may, in fact, be Dark Energy.
Paulsrocket Posted January 10 Author Posted January 10 49 minutes ago, swansont said: You introduced it as somehow being a consequence of the notion of dark matter - you suggested it’s a clear connection. If it’s not your position, why bring it up? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgSZA3NPpBs&pp=ygUhdGhlIHNpbXVsYXRpb24gaHlwb3RoZXNpcyBsZWN0dXJl I brought it up because I find theoretical physicists claiming that the Universe is essentially the Matrix, humorous. The other reason that is less obvious is the one that I already pointed out which is that a simulation has no mass other than its code. Tyson also admits that a creator would be needed for the simulation theory, which makes him a preacher.
J.C.MacSwell Posted January 10 Posted January 10 5 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: There are no equations that explain the expansion of the universe until 85% more mass is found. Einsteins equations actually predicted a static universe, and Einstein maintained this until Hubble proved him wrong Among other things, you seem to be conflating the need for Dark Energy and the need for Dark Matter.
Recommended Posts