Dark matter

[kimmy]

Redshift is in the book. In the common physics understanding it's believed to be the Doppler Effect for light. But according to special relativity light travel is constant relative to the observer. It's one of those anomalies of relativity.

The speed of light doesn't change for any observer. Its wavelenth/frequency change depending on the relative motion of the observers. Where do you think the anomaly is?

Good. Force is a phenomenon of energy. Like heat.

LOL, no!

I'll ask you the same question - when is my magnet going to fall off my fridge?

Rather than answer the question directly (as Toadbrother did) I will inquire as to your underlying difficulty: why do you think your magnet sticking to your fridge is an example of a source of limitless energy?

All it is is an example of a system where two opposing forces are in equilibrium. It's not generating *any* energy.

Maybe you're thinking "but magnets never wear out! Gravity never wears out! I can move a wire through a magnetic field and get energy! I can drop an object and get energy. So magnets are a source of unlimited energy! Gravity is a source of unlimited energy!"

But if that is what you're thinking, you'd be wrong.

When you move a wire through a magnetic field, the energy doesn't come from the magnet. The energy comes from the motion of the wire. When you run your generator, you don't burn gas to power the magnets, you burn gas to move the wires through the field.

When you drop an object, the energy didn't come from gravity. The energy came from the object's initial position relative to the source of gravity. When the object falls, it exchanges potential energy for kinetic energy. Can the same object fall twice? No, once it's on the floor, it stays there. But you could pick it up and drop it again! Well, then you're putting energy back into the system by doing Work to add potential energy to the object.

So while I share your amazement at magnets-- f***ing magnets, how do they work?? --you have failed to demonstrate any sort of anomaly or violation of the law of conservation of energy or anything of the sort.

And considering that concepts that are covered in grade 10 physics courses seem to be completely mysterious to you, perhaps you should forget Relativity (and the Expansion Theory!) for the time being and just try and get a handle on Newton. Baby steps, my friend.

-k

[ToadBrother]

A theory is a theory and it is as good as it explains things. The theory of everything would explain...well...everything.

Absurdly false. A scientific theory is a considerably more rigorous set of claims then "I have this wildass idea". Such statements always read to my like a denigration of science to make someone's shaky claim seem somehow less unworthy, sort of "Yeah well, the scientific theory of thermodynamics is just a theory, just like my perpetual motion machine theory."

For a theory to even been ranked as a scientific theory means that there has been an extraordinarily rigorous effort put into it. It is not the equivalent of "I was watching some popular science program and this idea popped into my head."

I recently watched a show on physics regarding dark matter and, as it is mathematically predicted by the theory of relativity, physicists are trying to detect it. One of the physicists said it may not be measurable by material yardsticks since it isn't matter but they were hopeful a few particles would show up. Several millions of dollars are being spent to detect such particles so it is a serious subject.

We have creationist theory that starts from the premise of the existence of God. Of course, in light of scientific advancement, the theory of relativity and our increased understanding of the universe, we cannot accept the old fashioned idea of heaven and hell and the man in the sky.

Since dark matter is not a material thing is it perhaps science's mathematical proof of god?

I'm confused by this statement. Are you saying god is a hard-to-detect kind of matter that gravitationally influences galaxies? That's a pretty strange definition of God, don't you think?

Of course, creationist theory served us well for several millenia, we overcame many fears because of it.

It doesn't explain the universe to us in it's entirety and perhaps that is the legitimate complaint of science. But science has yet to explain the universe to us as well. Perhaps all that is necessary is a redefinition of terms in order to diminish the divide between scientific and creationist theory? Basically, replacing old concepts of the same thing with new concepts. The concept of god gives the existence of the universe purpose and reason. The scientific explanation of a chance happening out of chaos resulting in the big bang explains nothing as far as reason and purpose - perhaps dark matter will give it some purpose?

There was no creationist theory, and there still is no creationist theory. Saying "God did it" isn't a theory in any rigorous sense. And how did it serve us well, it had no explanatory power, it was at best a way to produce a certain amount of social cohesion. Even the Ancient Greeks were smart enough to see the flaw in just handwaving everything away as acts of God.

[kimmy]

Redshift is one. "Spooky" entanglement another.

Quantum entanglement is the only actual anomaly you've identified so far.

True. How many could even read? But the way I see it is there were scientific advisers to the court and the incarceration of Galileo was not done out of an absence of advice and perhaps even refutation from them. After all, they had propagated the Ptolemic theory for most of their scientific lives. Perhaps they were lenient on Galileo and only sentenced him to house arrest for the rest of his life instead of having him drink the hemlock because they knew he was right. The fact is the Ptolemmic theory stood longer than it should have precisely because of...well...politics and the established hierarchy.

I think you've long since lost sight of your original point. You set out to provide an example of scientists suppressing the truth, but instead you provided an example of an old theory gradually being replaced over a span of a hundred years thanks to new technology, better measurements, and new observations.

Not on my agenda, either. At least not in this life. Some risk their lives in space, some on Mt. Everest but to claim there are not those that feel our money and efforts are best spent on starving kids in Africa than a trip to the moon and that we need to stop drilling for oil or driving our vehicles is rather disingenuous an argument.

What of it? Are you saying you're not allowed to climb Mt Everest because somebody wants to help starving African kids? No? Then what's the issue?

It is when someone else is concerned about and granted the responsibility to look after your welfare that you must become concerned. Your choices will become limited and you will be advised against climbing your mountain, whatever it may be for the good of all.

The fear that your freedom to climb that mountain is being taken away is irrational paranoia.

It is quite bizarre a thought but the simplicity is that attention fixes on problems. Once the problem of an afterlife has been done away with we can knock down the church spires and erect health spas in their place. Care of the spirit is no longer a concern thanks to people like yourself. Not only that but we can know concentrate our resources where they should be - studying the brain. Perhaps the right chemical balance is necessary. I know you will support that.

I think the proposition that a church is better for your spirit than a spa is highly dubious.

I think that reading a good book, fiction or non-fiction, is better for your spirit than reading about a tribe of scumbags rampaging around the desert committing acts of insane savagery and genocide upon everybody they meet. I think time spent enjoying physical activity, or sex, or relaxation, is better for your spirit than time spent sitting on a bench listening to some guy tell you about the aforementioned desert scumbags.

And when I say spirit I mean mental health, emotional well-being, contentment, satisfaction, happiness, and fulfillment... not some magical energy that lives on after you die.

Bizarre? What do you think will occur in a society dedicated to the welfare of the body? And what bodies should our resources be expended upon? Are they all equally valuable or are there some that are more equal than others. After all we are only concerned about some electro/chemical reactions.

This is all a straw-man, of course. The view that we are not magical spirit-beings does not discount individuality and does not render physical health the only or even primary concern.

Yours is not a formalized belief in anything, of course, it is fact. Many scientists agree. Now when things go bump in the night there is no reason to fear.

There could very well be a reason to fear... but whatever there is, there's going to be a rational explanation. When has something that went bump in the night ever *not* had a rational explanation? We've found rational explanations for every mystery we've faced, and that is a trend that will continue.

A formalized belief is not what we are looking for. I prefer you maintain your integrity, not to any formalized belief or claim to truth, but to your own understanding. That way we can escape the imposition of restrictions on behavior that a formalized belief places upon us. There is no doubt they have been utilized as control methods.

Of course. Obey us and get eternal happiness. Disobey us, and suffer eternal torment. Liberated spirit-beings in their next life... not this one.

You said "you've got to earn" your next life. So how do you do that? If you don't believe any of the step-by-step plans to earning your next life (plans laid out by Christians, Muslims, Hindus, or etc) then have you come up with your own plan to earn your next life?

The problem is that some feel others need a formalized belief. Like you need to be a vegetarian. If you are there is no problem. If you aren't, there is a problem. You can't deny the move by some to argue the use of ranchlands is a waste. Is that a formalized belief or is it valid or perhaps it is an evolutionary step?

If ranchland is an inefficient use of resources, then the cost of meat will reflect that, and people will either pay or not, and the ranches will survive or not. You won't be able to decide on your own; the cumulative effect of large numbers of other people making their own decisions will determine the outcome.

-k

[Bonam]

Quantum entanglement is the only actual anomaly you've identified so far.

Quantum entanglement is a very puzzling and interesting phenomenon but it doesn't actually violate any of the laws of physics under GR and QM. I wouldn't call it an "anomaly".

[kimmy]

Quantum entanglement is a very puzzling and interesting phenomenon but it doesn't actually violate any of the laws of physics under GR and QM. I wouldn't call it an "anomaly".

Doesn't quantum entanglement potentially carry information faster than the speed of light?

-k

[Bonam]

Doesn't quantum entanglement potentially carry information faster than the speed of light?

-k

Well that's just the thing, the little loophole is that no actual information is carried. Since spins are entirely random, and you can't know the spin in advance, all you get when you measure the spin of an entangled particle is randomness. Even if there's another particle somewhere far away whose spin is then also determined, whoever is measuring it has no way to communicate with you faster than light to know of your determination, and so to them it is still a 50/50 chance of being spin up or spin down, even though you already know the result.

If you want to send them a communication to tell them the result they will get when they measure the particle's spin, you can do that, and they will indeed know the particle's spin prior to measuring it. However, by the time they get the message, that means enough time has already passed for information to be communicated between the two particles sub-luminally.

The engineering way to think of it is... could you use quantum entanglement to design a faster than light communicator that actually transmits useful information? If you can't, no actual information is carried. Only randomness.

By the way, quantum entanglement is not the only faster than light phenomenon that carries information. For example the phase velocity of electromagnetic waves can be superluminal, but since it is only the group velocity that actually carries any information, it doesn't violate any rules.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Bonam

[Pliny]

I just got a great new idea. Since smaller objects and particles tend to fly off of larger spinning objects we should all be flying off the Earth. Creating gravity in space with a spinning wheel as they did in "2001: A Space Odyssey" means they were on the inside of the outside wall and approximating Earth's gravity. So maybe we are really on the inside of Earth under the crust. Sort of in hell.

[Pliny]

Well, I have some replies to my question about magnets but no but no answer.

Toadbrother said this:

Magnetism is the alignment of the atomic structure of a substance, in the case of fridge magnets, it's ferromagnetism. It is permanent, or close enough to it, but in and of itself is not a force, it is the effect it has on other materials that produces the energy, and that energy still has to come from somewhere. Force must be applied for the magnetic field to actually do work. In other words, you're still using energy.

But that doesn't answer how it is defying gravity. Force is being applied to the magnet, the force of gravity, and it is actually doing work on my fridge aligning the electrons of the ferromagnetic material to keep itself opposing the gravitational force.

Bonam said this:

That's not really an entirely correct explanation. The reality is magnetic fields can be described by potentials, just like electrostatic and gravitational fields. A piece of ferromagnetic metal sitting at some position relative to a permanent magnet has a given value of magnetic potential. If it's floating in space with nothing stopping it, it will move due to the magnetic force it feels. As with any force that can be described by a potential function, energy is inherently conserved, and objects attempt to reach a configuration of the lowest potential energy (thereby converting it to kinetic energy).

Basically, this is a statement that potential forces will arrive at an equilibrium.

kimmy said this:

Rather than answer the question directly (as Toadbrother did) I will inquire as to your underlying difficulty: why do you think your magnet sticking to your fridge is an example of a source of limitless energy?

All it is is an example of a system where two opposing forces are in equilibrium. It's not generating *any* energy.

It is aligning the electrons in the ferromagnetic material. That takes a little energy, I think. That is how it holds itself up and defies the force of gravity.

And this:But if that is what you're thinking, you'd be wrong.

When you move a wire through a magnetic field, the energy doesn't come from the magnet. The energy comes from the motion of the wire. When you run your generator, you don't burn gas to power the magnets, you burn gas to move the wires through the field.

When you drop an object, the energy didn't come from gravity. The energy came from the object's initial position relative to the source of gravity. When the object falls, it exchanges potential energy for kinetic energy. Can the same object fall twice? No, once it's on the floor, it stays there. But you could pick it up and drop it again! Well, then you're putting energy back into the system by doing Work to add potential energy to the object.

When you are holding an object up. You expend energy. You are doing work to keep the object from falling

to the ground. When you let go you are no longer expending any energy and the force of gravity brings the object to the Earth. The magnet can keep itself from falling by aligning the electrons of a ferrous material. Is that doing work? Is that expending energy?

and this:LOL, no!

Still having fun.

[GostHacked]

I just got a great new idea. Since smaller objects and particles tend to fly off of larger spinning objects we should all be flying off the Earth. Creating gravity in space with a spinning wheel as they did in "2001: A Space Odyssey" means they were on the inside of the outside wall and approximating Earth's gravity. So maybe we are really on the inside of Earth under the crust. Sort of in hell.

So why have the planets not spun out into space resulting in no longer orbiting the sun?

[ToadBrother]

When you are holding an object up. You expend energy. You are doing work to keep the object from falling

to the ground. When you let go you are no longer expending any energy and the force of gravity brings the object to the Earth. The magnet can keep itself from falling by aligning the electrons of a ferrous material. Is that doing work? Is that expending energy?

No, it is an intrinsic property of matter. It is the moving of the magnet or the lifting of the ball that is the work. A ball lying on the grand is at what one might refer to as a rest state. It requires no energy to stay there, any more than the electron in orbit around an atomic nucleus requires energy to remain in that orbit. In both cases, if you want to change the state, you have to use energy to do it. It is the altering of states that requires energy, not the states themselves. Want to bump an electron up an energy level, well, you need to put energy into it. In and of itself, the electron will just stay at the orbit it is in for a very long time (or until some other energy sources to alter its state).

Edited October 26, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Wild Bill]

I just got a great new idea. Since smaller objects and particles tend to fly off of larger spinning objects we should all be flying off the Earth. Creating gravity in space with a spinning wheel as they did in "2001: A Space Odyssey" means they were on the inside of the outside wall and approximating Earth's gravity. So maybe we are really on the inside of Earth under the crust. Sort of in hell.

I think you are confusing gravity with centrifugal force. They are NOT the same thing!

Gravity is an inherent attraction between two masses. Even two pebbles have "gravity". A dropped book falls because of the attraction between the book and the earth. Sometimes we are confused into thinking that only the Earth has gravity, simply because it's gravity is so huge compared to that between two pebbles. Put those pebbles far out in airless space and they will be attracted to each other, since there are no other and larger masses around to affect them.

Centrifugal force is generated by whirling a mass around a centre, while anchored. Like with a rock on a string or that big wheel of a space station in 2001. Really, it's just ordinary linear acceleration held in check by the action of the "rope". With objects in an orbit, like the Moon around the Earth, gravity is the "string".

When you release the rope, the accelerated object no longer is held by any anchor and immediately flies away at right angles to the force of the anchor, in a straight line. The energy came from the velocity of the orbiting object.

Objects on the outside of larger spinning objects tend to fly off simply because they are not anchored against the centrifugal force. That's all! If the spinning object is big enough to exert a sufficiently strong pull of gravity that exceeds the centrifugal force of spinning, the objects just sit there.

You're starting to stretch more and more and more, Pliny. Have you been drinking?

[Pliny]

You said "you've got to earn" your next life. So how do you do that? If you don't believe any of the step-by-step plans to earning your next life (plans laid out by Christians, Muslims, Hindus, or etc) then have you come up with your own plan to earn your next life?

-k

The first lesson is, you cannot deny your awareness. How do you maintain it?

Suffice it to say, regarding this subject, that you have eliminated any possiblity of you explaining to yourself an experience that falls outside of your understanding. All of your answers will be found in books and/or explained to you by experts and authority. You will have to wait for answers that science has yet to find for you. In the meantime, before all those answers are found you will accept the next best guess, possibly from others who similarly found their answers elsewhere, as truth in the matter.

We are the sum of our education and experience but you seem to be expressing here that your education will override your experience. Thus your perceptions are not reliable.

[Bonam]

Pliny, the energy involved in applying a force is given by the following equation:

Energy = force * distance

If the object that the force is being applied to doesn't move any distance, no energy is spent. This is basic grade 8 physics here. The magnet is sitting still, not moving. Therefore no energy is expended.

[ToadBrother]

The first lesson is, you cannot deny your awareness. How do you maintain it?

Suffice it to say, regarding this subject, that you have eliminated any possiblity of you explaining to yourself an experience that falls outside of your understanding. All of your answers will be found in books and/or explained to you by experts and authority. You will have to wait for answers that science has yet to find for you. In the meantime, before all those answers are found you will accept the next best guess, possibly from others who similarly found their answers elsewhere, as truth in the matter.

We are the sum of our education and experience but you seem to be expressing here that your education will override your experience. Thus your perceptions are not reliable.

Was there a single statement in this post that resembles a coherent thought? I can't make out what you're even trying to say.

But suffice it to say that thus far you've shown a profound lack of knowledge of basic high school physics. I think maybe you should turn off your TV and go to the library and get a copy of a high school physics textbook.

[Bonam]

The world must seem a truly puzzling place when one is mystified by why a fridge magnet doesn't fall, or by why we don't fly off into space from the surface of the Earth

Let me help you out some more with the magnet. Let's say instead of sticking something to your fridge with a magnet, you stick it to your fridge with some glue. Is the glue constantly doing work and producing limitless energy in your mind? After all, it is "constantly countering" the force of gravity. Is a concrete beam that holds up a building a source of infinite energy since, it, too, is constantly countering gravity?

Here's what I don't understand Pliny. You seem interested enough in these concepts to spend time here discussing them. Why not try to spend a little bit of time reading legitimate books to actually gain a bit of knowledge on the subject?

[Pliny]

You still do not understand the Doppler effect here.

If an object in space is emitting light and moving towards you, it looks blue. As it is moving away, red. Simply because anything moving towards you and emitting light, will show blue, because it is kind of compressed. Meaning the light particles are closer together when emitted from the object because it is moving towards you. The opposite happens if the object is moving away from you, resulting in a red spectrum. The constant of light does not change with the doppler effect, the doppler effect explains how close together the particles are from each other when emitted. It's the same thing when a train with the horn blaring creeps up in tone when approaching you, and then fades in tone when moving away. The speed of sound from the object is the same, the speed at which the sound reaches you is the same. However since the object moving away from you will sound different because as it is moving away, and sound is emitted, it takes longer and longer for that sound to hit your ears.

This is how we are able to determine directions of storms, using the doppler effect. When you send out a radar signal (a constant) to a storm, and it bounces back in increasing intervals, the storm is moving away from you. When the intervals are decreased (but the speed of the signal is the same) the object is moving towards you.

If there was no constant speed of light, we simply would not be able to measure things as we do now.

Thanks for taking the time to illustrate that for me. There is definitely something I am not understanding.

You see, the theory of relativity tells us that light travels at a constant relative to an observer. So if I am traveling at half the speed of light towards a light source the light is not speeding towards me at one and a half times the speed of light. Relative to me it is still traveling at the speed of light. It cannot appear to me as going faster than the speed of light. With the doppler effect distance is involved and sound does not travel at the same speed relative to me. Redshift is explained as the doppler effect with light. Which then poses the question that if light is, relative to me, traveling at a constant how do I experience the observation of a redshift.

Perhaps I have a misconception in this fundamental of light that someone can elaborate on.

[ToadBrother]

Thanks for taking the time to illustrate that for me. There is definitely something I am not understanding.

You see, the theory of relativity tells us that light travels at a constant relative to an observer. So if I am traveling at half the speed of light towards a light source the light is not speeding towards me at one and a half times the speed of light. Relative to me it is still traveling at the speed of light. It cannot appear to me as going faster than the speed of light. With the doppler effect distance is involved and sound does not travel at the same speed relative to me. Redshift is explained as the doppler effect with light. Which then poses the question that if light is, relative to me, traveling at a constant how do I experience the observation of a redshift.

Perhaps I have a misconception in this fundamental of light that someone can elaborate on.

The light is changing speed in red shift (or blue shift), it's the frequency of light (the length of the wave) that's widening (or narrowing in the case of blue shift).

[Bonam]

Thanks for taking the time to illustrate that for me. There is definitely something I am not understanding.

You see, the theory of relativity tells us that light travels at a constant relative to an observer. So if I am traveling at half the speed of light towards a light source the light is not speeding towards me at one and a half times the speed of light. Relative to me it is still traveling at the speed of light. It cannot appear to me as going faster than the speed of light. With the doppler effect distance is involved and sound does not travel at the same speed relative to me. Redshift is explained as the doppler effect with light. Which then poses the question that if light is, relative to me, traveling at a constant how do I experience the observation of a redshift.

Perhaps I have a misconception in this fundamental of light that someone can elaborate on.

The doppler effect affects the frequency of light that you observe, not its velocity.

[Pliny]

So why have the planets not spun out into space resulting in no longer orbiting the sun?

We are not sitting on the surface of the sun so we are not spinning off of it. Rather, the sun is in an orbital movement in relation to the planets. Our galaxy may be flinging off of the centre of the universe which is spinning.

We couldn't be on the surface of the sun becasue we would be flung off. If we were under the surface we would really be in hell or at least a place approximating it.

But I hope you aren't seriously asking.

[ToadBrother]

The doppler effect affects the frequency of light that you observe, not its velocity.

The doppler effect, so far as I'm aware, has no effect on velocity of anything, whether it's sound waves, ripples in a pool or whatever. In all cases, it is the lengthening or shortening of the wavelength.

Honestly, I swear by all that some folks find holy, this is all basic high school physics here. I think I had to have been in grade 7 or 8 when we were taught about the Doppler effect, though not in terms of light, but in terms of soundwaves.

[ToadBrother]

We are not sitting on the surface of the sun so we are not spinning off of it. Rather, the sun is in an orbital movement in relation to the planets. Our galaxy may be flinging off of the centre of the universe which is spinning.

This is so absurd, it's not even wrong.

The reason the planets orbit the sun is because the sun's gravity warps space, turning a straight line into a curved one. If the sun were to disappear right now, in eight minutes (presuming gravity propagates at the speed of light), the Earth would start moving in a straight line.

Where the hell do you get the "universe is spinning" notion from? What would that even mean?

Edited October 26, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Pliny]

The doppler effect affects the frequency of light that you observe, not its velocity.

The velocity of sound is constant from it's source. If it is moving relative to me I experience the doppler effect because it's frequency relative to me is changing. How is light that is moving relative to me, and not it's source, going to be changing frequency?

Edited October 26, 2011 by Pliny

[Bonam]

The velocity of sound is constant from it's source. If it is moving relative to me I experience the doppler affect because it's frequency relative to me is changing. How is light that is moving relative to me, and not it's source, going to be changing frequency?

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

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

[Bonam]

Long story short: if you are traveling towards a light source, each subsequent pulse of light from that source has less distance to cover before it reaches you. So you observe them to reach you more frequently than they are emitted. Converse true for if you are moving away from the source.

[GostHacked]

The velocity of sound is constant from it's source. If it is moving relative to me I experience the doppler affect because it's frequency relative to me is changing. How is light that is moving relative to me, and not it's source, going to be changing frequency?

Sound does travel at different speeds, depending on the medium, as far as I know. Sound travels faster and farther through water than it does in the air, and even faster through solid objects. And sound can't even be produced or travel in a vacuum. So there is a 'constant' of the speed of sound that we use. But that is calculated in stable air at a certain temperature at a certain altitude. Again, I might be wrong, but this is what I remember from school.