What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

A thought--For the physics experts out there (1 Viewer)

supermike80

Footballguy
Ok so I was pondering dark matter the other day. Why I don't know. But I had a thought(changed from theory because it really seemed to bother people I used that term)...most likely this theory has been postulated somewhere sometime but here we go.
First, I believe that we aren't the only intelligent beings in the universe. Also, I believe it's likely that there exists a higher plane of existence somewhere somehow.
So. What if there exists an energy based entity out there. I'll stop short of calling it a lifeform, cause that leads us to compare it to our life existence, which I don't think needs to be true.
Anyway....What if this entity is energy based, operating at a higher plane than ours. It can travel faster than the speed of light and meanders through the universe. Maybe as an energy based form, it consumes energy in the universe to survive. So as it travels through the universe, it leaves part of itself behind. No different that if we walk. We leave skin flakes, sweat, odors, etc behind us. But because this energy is so high(compared to what we know) and it is traveling faster that the speed of light, that energy left behind converts into mass using Einstein's E=MC2 equation and THAT is what we call dark matter. After all we can't directly detect it, we can only detect what it does to our world..IE Mass which affects our gravity.
Yeah I know this is kind of Star Treck-y, but it is something I have pondered. Anyone in the physics field wanna weigh in on this and tell me to stop watching Sci Fi stuff?
 
Last edited:

Galileo

Footballguy
But I had a theory...
Scientifically, this is not a theory unless you have supporting evidence to back your explanation.
most likely this theory has been postulated somewhere sometime but here we go
Yes, typically when someone gets high
I believe that we aren't the only intelligent beings in the universe
Maybe, but as of now, we have no evidence of this. We keep searching and hoping though.
there exists a higher plane of existence
I have no idea what you mean by this. It seems as though you are alluding to something supernatural. If so, not a matter of physics

What if there exists an energy based entity
As a physicist, I am on board with the idea that energy exists. Not sure what you mean by "entity", but energy is a concept that conveniently allows us to make sense out of the workings and interactions observed within the natural world.
I'll stop short of calling it a lifeform
Wise decision
What if this entity is energy based, operating at a higher plane than ours
Still don't know what this means...
it consumes energy in the universe to survive. So as it travels through the universe, it leaves part of itself behind.
I guess in some twisted way this would not violate conservation laws
But because this energy is so high(compared to what we know) and it is traveling faster that the speed of light, that energy left behind converts into mass using Einstein's E=MC2 equation and THAT is what we call dark matter.
E=mc^2 is strongly supported by experimental evidence and establishes an equivalency between mass and energy. All mass is just a form of energy. Particles of mass can, and do, spring into existence out energy. We can detect this matter. We can account for the energy changes related to these processes. I am failing to see how any of your story here offers an explanation as to why some matter would be "dark".
 

supermike80

Footballguy
But I had a theory...
Scientifically, this is not a theory unless you have supporting evidence to back your explanation.
most likely this theory has been postulated somewhere sometime but here we go
Yes, typically when someone gets high
I believe that we aren't the only intelligent beings in the universe
Maybe, but as of now, we have no evidence of this. We keep searching and hoping though.
there exists a higher plane of existence
I have no idea what you mean by this. It seems as though you are alluding to something supernatural. If so, not a matter of physics

What if there exists an energy based entity
As a physicist, I am on board with the idea that energy exists. Not sure what you mean by "entity", but energy is a concept that conveniently allows us to make sense out of the workings and interactions observed within the natural world.
I'll stop short of calling it a lifeform
Wise decision
What if this entity is energy based, operating at a higher plane than ours
Still don't know what this means...
it consumes energy in the universe to survive. So as it travels through the universe, it leaves part of itself behind.
I guess in some twisted way this would not violate conservation laws
But because this energy is so high(compared to what we know) and it is traveling faster that the speed of light, that energy left behind converts into mass using Einstein's E=MC2 equation and THAT is what we call dark matter.
E=mc^2 is strongly supported by experimental evidence and establishes an equivalency between mass and energy. All mass is just a form of energy. Particles of mass can, and do, spring into existence out energy. We can detect this matter. We can account for the energy changes related to these processes. I am failing to see how any of your story here offers an explanation as to why some matter would be "dark".
For a physicist, that was a strange reply. Someone cannot have a theory without evidence? That literally makes no sense at all. I apologize that you don't understand a "higher plane of existence" but, again, I think those locked in the world of physics have a tendency to believe(falsely in my opinion) that the only physics that can exist is what we can think of.

You guys use the cat analogy. The theory is that if you give a cat a book on quantum mechanics....no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, no matter how long it takes, that cat will never understand quantum mechanics. I believe the same is true for humans. There could quite possibly be things in the universe we will never understand or know. Our intelligence level doesn't allow for it. To think the entire universe exists and lives by laws we have, is quite frankly seriously short sighted.
 

supermike80

Footballguy
I believe what G is saying is that theory is not the word you're looking for. Possibly hypothesis is more correct.

Well fun...We can wordsmith all day...Is that truly the point?
Yes?
Ok..Appreciate your input. You win the wordsmith award. You must feel great!
 

3C's

Footballguy
I believe what G is saying is that theory is not the word you're looking for. Possibly hypothesis is more correct.

Well fun...We can wordsmith all day...Is that truly the point?
Yes?
Ok..Appreciate your input. You win the wordsmith award. You must feel great!
Guess what, it wasn't me who questioned your word usage but tried to assist in explaining the previous reply. How bout you take a small dose of chill?
 

supermike80

Footballguy
I believe what G is saying is that theory is not the word you're looking for. Possibly hypothesis is more correct.

Well fun...We can wordsmith all day...Is that truly the point?
Yes?
Ok..Appreciate your input. You win the wordsmith award. You must feel great!
Guess what, it wasn't me who questioned your word usage but tried to assist in explaining the previous reply. How bout you take a small dose of chill?
Again, appreciate your input to this discussion tremendously. You have added significant value here!
 

3C's

Footballguy
I believe what G is saying is that theory is not the word you're looking for. Possibly hypothesis is more correct.

Well fun...We can wordsmith all day...Is that truly the point?
Yes?
Ok..Appreciate your input. You win the wordsmith award. You must feel great!
Guess what, it wasn't me who questioned your word usage but tried to assist in explaining the previous reply. How bout you take a small dose of chill?
Again, appreciate your input to this discussion tremendously. You have added significant value here!
You're welcome. Just trying to move a boring thread along. Keep on being super mike.
 

IvanKaramazov

Footballguy
Ok so I was pondering dark matter the other day. Why I don't know. But I had a thought(changed from theory because it really seemed to bother people I used that term)...most likely this theory has been postulated somewhere sometime but here we go.
First, I believe that we aren't the only intelligent beings in the universe. Also, I believe it's likely that there exists a higher plane of existence somewhere somehow.
So. What if there exists an energy based entity out there. I'll stop short of calling it a lifeform, cause that leads us to compare it to our life existence, which I don't think needs to be true.
Anyway....What if this entity is energy based, operating at a higher plane than ours. It can travel faster than the speed of light and meanders through the universe. Maybe as an energy based form, it consumes energy in the universe to survive. So as it travels through the universe, it leaves part of itself behind. No different that if we walk. We leave skin flakes, sweat, odors, etc behind us. But because this energy is so high(compared to what we know) and it is traveling faster that the speed of light, that energy left behind converts into mass using Einstein's E=MC2 equation and THAT is what we call dark matter. After all we can't directly detect it, we can only detect what it does to our world..IE Mass which affects our gravity.
Yeah I know this is kind of Star Treck-y, but it is something I have pondered. Anyone in the physics field wanna weigh in on this and tell me to stop watching Sci Fi stuff?
I think about stuff like this all the time, usually after smoking something.
 

supermike80

Footballguy
I believe what G is saying is that theory is not the word you're looking for. Possibly hypothesis is more correct.

Well fun...We can wordsmith all day...Is that truly the point?
Yes?
Ok..Appreciate your input. You win the wordsmith award. You must feel great!
Guess what, it wasn't me who questioned your word usage but tried to assist in explaining the previous reply. How bout you take a small dose of chill?
Again, appreciate your input to this discussion tremendously. You have added significant value here!
You're welcome. Just trying to move a boring thread along. Keep on being super mike.
Well it's unfortunate you find the thread, after a couple posts, boring. Maybe moving on to the grill thread might suit you more comfortably? I understand sometimes these things, especially when involving things like physics or other ideas, are a little much for people and can bore them. It can be hard to have a conversation or add input when the concept is beyond a certain level of understanding. I get that. I will say your input really helped speed things along however.
 

supermike80

Footballguy
Ok so I was pondering dark matter the other day. Why I don't know. But I had a thought(changed from theory because it really seemed to bother people I used that term)...most likely this theory has been postulated somewhere sometime but here we go.
First, I believe that we aren't the only intelligent beings in the universe. Also, I believe it's likely that there exists a higher plane of existence somewhere somehow.
So. What if there exists an energy based entity out there. I'll stop short of calling it a lifeform, cause that leads us to compare it to our life existence, which I don't think needs to be true.
Anyway....What if this entity is energy based, operating at a higher plane than ours. It can travel faster than the speed of light and meanders through the universe. Maybe as an energy based form, it consumes energy in the universe to survive. So as it travels through the universe, it leaves part of itself behind. No different that if we walk. We leave skin flakes, sweat, odors, etc behind us. But because this energy is so high(compared to what we know) and it is traveling faster that the speed of light, that energy left behind converts into mass using Einstein's E=MC2 equation and THAT is what we call dark matter. After all we can't directly detect it, we can only detect what it does to our world..IE Mass which affects our gravity.
Yeah I know this is kind of Star Treck-y, but it is something I have pondered. Anyone in the physics field wanna weigh in on this and tell me to stop watching Sci Fi stuff?
I think about stuff like this all the time, usually after smoking something.
Hey some of the best ideas ever probably came to light after some drugs man!
 

Zow

Footballguy
I believe what G is saying is that theory is not the word you're looking for. Possibly hypothesis is more correct.

Well fun...We can wordsmith all day...Is that truly the point?
Yes?
Ok..Appreciate your input. You win the wordsmith award. You must feel great!
Guess what, it wasn't me who questioned your word usage but tried to assist in explaining the previous reply. How bout you take a small dose of chill?
Again, appreciate your input to this discussion tremendously. You have added significant value here!
Respectfully, you're asking for input from actual physicists. They're probably going to want and expect you to use proper verbiage.
 

Zow

Footballguy
Ok so I was pondering dark matter the other day. Why I don't know. But I had a thought(changed from theory because it really seemed to bother people I used that term)...most likely this theory has been postulated somewhere sometime but here we go.
First, I believe that we aren't the only intelligent beings in the universe. Also, I believe it's likely that there exists a higher plane of existence somewhere somehow.
So. What if there exists an energy based entity out there. I'll stop short of calling it a lifeform, cause that leads us to compare it to our life existence, which I don't think needs to be true.
Anyway....What if this entity is energy based, operating at a higher plane than ours. It can travel faster than the speed of light and meanders through the universe. Maybe as an energy based form, it consumes energy in the universe to survive. So as it travels through the universe, it leaves part of itself behind. No different that if we walk. We leave skin flakes, sweat, odors, etc behind us. But because this energy is so high(compared to what we know) and it is traveling faster that the speed of light, that energy left behind converts into mass using Einstein's E=MC2 equation and THAT is what we call dark matter. After all we can't directly detect it, we can only detect what it does to our world..IE Mass which affects our gravity.
Yeah I know this is kind of Star Treck-y, but it is something I have pondered. Anyone in the physics field wanna weigh in on this and tell me to stop watching Sci Fi stuff?
I think about stuff like this all the time, usually after smoking something.
See, when I started consuming something that's now lawful in my state I had hoped for this outcome. Instead, I just get the munchies and think about randomly stuff from like my college dorm or something.
 

supermike80

Footballguy
I believe what G is saying is that theory is not the word you're looking for. Possibly hypothesis is more correct.

Well fun...We can wordsmith all day...Is that truly the point?
Yes?
Ok..Appreciate your input. You win the wordsmith award. You must feel great!
Guess what, it wasn't me who questioned your word usage but tried to assist in explaining the previous reply. How bout you take a small dose of chill?
Again, appreciate your input to this discussion tremendously. You have added significant value here!
Respectfully, you're asking for input from actual physicists. They're probably going to want and expect you to use proper verbiage.
Understood.
 

3C's

Footballguy
I believe what G is saying is that theory is not the word you're looking for. Possibly hypothesis is more correct.

Well fun...We can wordsmith all day...Is that truly the point?
Yes?
Ok..Appreciate your input. You win the wordsmith award. You must feel great!
Guess what, it wasn't me who questioned your word usage but tried to assist in explaining the previous reply. How bout you take a small dose of chill?
Again, appreciate your input to this discussion tremendously. You have added significant value here!
You're welcome. Just trying to move a boring thread along. Keep on being super mike.
Well it's unfortunate you find the thread, after a couple posts, boring. Maybe moving on to the grill thread might suit you more comfortably? I understand sometimes these things, especially when involving things like physics or other ideas, are a little much for people and can bore them. It can be hard to have a conversation or add input when the concept is beyond a certain level of understanding. I get that. I will say your input really helped speed things along however.
lol, says the one who used theory in place of hypothesis.
 

supermike80

Footballguy
I believe what G is saying is that theory is not the word you're looking for. Possibly hypothesis is more correct.

Well fun...We can wordsmith all day...Is that truly the point?
Yes?
Ok..Appreciate your input. You win the wordsmith award. You must feel great!
Guess what, it wasn't me who questioned your word usage but tried to assist in explaining the previous reply. How bout you take a small dose of chill?
Again, appreciate your input to this discussion tremendously. You have added significant value here!
You're welcome. Just trying to move a boring thread along. Keep on being super mike.
Well it's unfortunate you find the thread, after a couple posts, boring. Maybe moving on to the grill thread might suit you more comfortably? I understand sometimes these things, especially when involving things like physics or other ideas, are a little much for people and can bore them. It can be hard to have a conversation or add input when the concept is beyond a certain level of understanding. I get that. I will say your input really helped speed things along however.
lol, says the one who used theory in place of hypothesis.
Wow...This is REALLLY REALLY important to you. I apologize. I really had no idea. Please accept my apology
 

GordonGekko

Footballguy
Ok so I was pondering dark matter the other day. Why I don't know. But I had a thought(changed from theory because it really seemed to bother people I used that term)...most likely this theory has been postulated somewhere sometime but here we go.
First, I believe that we aren't the only intelligent beings in the universe. Also, I believe it's likely that there exists a higher plane of existence somewhere somehow.
So. What if there exists an energy based entity out there. I'll stop short of calling it a lifeform, cause that leads us to compare it to our life existence, which I don't think needs to be true.
Anyway....What if this entity is energy based, operating at a higher plane than ours. It can travel faster than the speed of light and meanders through the universe. Maybe as an energy based form, it consumes energy in the universe to survive. So as it travels through the universe, it leaves part of itself behind. No different that if we walk. We leave skin flakes, sweat, odors, etc behind us. But because this energy is so high(compared to what we know) and it is traveling faster that the speed of light, that energy left behind converts into mass using Einstein's E=MC2 equation and THAT is what we call dark matter. After all we can't directly detect it, we can only detect what it does to our world..IE Mass which affects our gravity.
Yeah I know this is kind of Star Treck-y, but it is something I have pondered. Anyone in the physics field wanna weigh in on this and tell me to stop watching Sci Fi stuff?

Look up "world lines" and "Lorentz Transformation"

A common misconception is that some type of intelligent life outside of Earth operates to our current understanding of "time" Thinks of Earth in different terms, that helps. Less like a planet, and more like a lifeboat. That changes the practical resource management perspective which changes the way our governments would likely react to intelligent life elsewhere.

When I went to law school, I was told in no uncertain terms that I was accepted because I was basically one of the few people with a STEM background ( mathematics) and I was an older established business owner. STEMs are rarely policy makers, which changes the dynamics of how fast the human race will evolve to answer some of the questions you are asking now.

When I went into the media optics world, I was literally the only person in most rooms who could do even rudimentary basic calculus. The great battle to understand the role of the human race in the larger universe requires a logistical and raw asset investment, with matching practical resource management to achieve. As a lawyer and a STEM, I can tell you our country is run by lawyers and they have no clue about how to push forward the practical advancement of the entire human race.

Two larger questions emerge

1) If there is life out there, what are the odds that they could find us, and even still, communicate with us?

2) What is their intent? Will they be hostile? Or our perception of "hostility"?

Project Thor under DARPA ( kinetic energy weapons concepts) should show humanity how easily a small group of aliens, with limited effort, could decimate the human race in a matter of hours. If there is intelligent life out there, I'd rather we kept our distance and they kept their distance. Stupid humans are bad enough. Add in potentially stupid aliens and our goose is likely cooked.

There's a thread here in the FFA for all the lawyers to talk about their careers and pat each other on the back smugly. Read it sometime, once you do, you'll start to deeply question whether there is intelligent life here on Earth as well.
 

Zow

Footballguy
Ok so I was pondering dark matter the other day. Why I don't know. But I had a thought(changed from theory because it really seemed to bother people I used that term)...most likely this theory has been postulated somewhere sometime but here we go.
First, I believe that we aren't the only intelligent beings in the universe. Also, I believe it's likely that there exists a higher plane of existence somewhere somehow.
So. What if there exists an energy based entity out there. I'll stop short of calling it a lifeform, cause that leads us to compare it to our life existence, which I don't think needs to be true.
Anyway....What if this entity is energy based, operating at a higher plane than ours. It can travel faster than the speed of light and meanders through the universe. Maybe as an energy based form, it consumes energy in the universe to survive. So as it travels through the universe, it leaves part of itself behind. No different that if we walk. We leave skin flakes, sweat, odors, etc behind us. But because this energy is so high(compared to what we know) and it is traveling faster that the speed of light, that energy left behind converts into mass using Einstein's E=MC2 equation and THAT is what we call dark matter. After all we can't directly detect it, we can only detect what it does to our world..IE Mass which affects our gravity.
Yeah I know this is kind of Star Treck-y, but it is something I have pondered. Anyone in the physics field wanna weigh in on this and tell me to stop watching Sci Fi stuff?

Look up "world lines" and "Lorentz Transformation"

A common misconception is that some type of intelligent life outside of Earth operates to our current understanding of "time" Thinks of Earth in different terms, that helps. Less like a planet, and more like a lifeboat. That changes the practical resource management perspective which changes the way our governments would likely react to intelligent life elsewhere.

When I went to law school, I was told in no uncertain terms that I was accepted because I was basically one of the few people with a STEM background ( mathematics) and I was an older established business owner. STEMs are rarely policy makers, which changes the dynamics of how fast the human race will evolve to answer some of the questions you are asking now.

When I went into the media optics world, I was literally the only person in most rooms who could do even rudimentary basic calculus. The great battle to understand the role of the human race in the larger universe requires a logistical and raw asset investment, with matching practical resource management to achieve. As a lawyer and a STEM, I can tell you our country is run by lawyers and they have no clue about how to push forward the practical advancement of the entire human race.

Two larger questions emerge

1) If there is life out there, what are the odds that they could find us, and even still, communicate with us?

2) What is their intent? Will they be hostile? Or our perception of "hostility"?

Project Thor under DARPA ( kinetic energy weapons concepts) should show humanity how easily a small group of aliens, with limited effort, could decimate the human race in a matter of hours. If there is intelligent life out there, I'd rather we kept our distance and they kept their distance. Stupid humans are bad enough. Add in potentially stupid aliens and our goose is likely cooked.

There's a thread here in the FFA for all the lawyers to talk about their careers and pat each other on the back smugly. Read it sometime, once you do, you'll start to deeply question whether there is intelligent life here on Earth as well.
Well, I was agreeing with most of what you were saying until your last paragraph... :lmao:
 

supermike80

Footballguy
Ok so I was pondering dark matter the other day. Why I don't know. But I had a thought(changed from theory because it really seemed to bother people I used that term)...most likely this theory has been postulated somewhere sometime but here we go.
First, I believe that we aren't the only intelligent beings in the universe. Also, I believe it's likely that there exists a higher plane of existence somewhere somehow.
So. What if there exists an energy based entity out there. I'll stop short of calling it a lifeform, cause that leads us to compare it to our life existence, which I don't think needs to be true.
Anyway....What if this entity is energy based, operating at a higher plane than ours. It can travel faster than the speed of light and meanders through the universe. Maybe as an energy based form, it consumes energy in the universe to survive. So as it travels through the universe, it leaves part of itself behind. No different that if we walk. We leave skin flakes, sweat, odors, etc behind us. But because this energy is so high(compared to what we know) and it is traveling faster that the speed of light, that energy left behind converts into mass using Einstein's E=MC2 equation and THAT is what we call dark matter. After all we can't directly detect it, we can only detect what it does to our world..IE Mass which affects our gravity.
Yeah I know this is kind of Star Treck-y, but it is something I have pondered. Anyone in the physics field wanna weigh in on this and tell me to stop watching Sci Fi stuff?

Look up "world lines" and "Lorentz Transformation"

A common misconception is that some type of intelligent life outside of Earth operates to our current understanding of "time" Thinks of Earth in different terms, that helps. Less like a planet, and more like a lifeboat. That changes the practical resource management perspective which changes the way our governments would likely react to intelligent life elsewhere.

When I went to law school, I was told in no uncertain terms that I was accepted because I was basically one of the few people with a STEM background ( mathematics) and I was an older established business owner. STEMs are rarely policy makers, which changes the dynamics of how fast the human race will evolve to answer some of the questions you are asking now.

When I went into the media optics world, I was literally the only person in most rooms who could do even rudimentary basic calculus. The great battle to understand the role of the human race in the larger universe requires a logistical and raw asset investment, with matching practical resource management to achieve. As a lawyer and a STEM, I can tell you our country is run by lawyers and they have no clue about how to push forward the practical advancement of the entire human race.

Two larger questions emerge

1) If there is life out there, what are the odds that they could find us, and even still, communicate with us?

2) What is their intent? Will they be hostile? Or our perception of "hostility"?

Project Thor under DARPA ( kinetic energy weapons concepts) should show humanity how easily a small group of aliens, with limited effort, could decimate the human race in a matter of hours. If there is intelligent life out there, I'd rather we kept our distance and they kept their distance. Stupid humans are bad enough. Add in potentially stupid aliens and our goose is likely cooked.

There's a thread here in the FFA for all the lawyers to talk about their careers and pat each other on the back smugly. Read it sometime, once you do, you'll start to deeply question whether there is intelligent life here on Earth as well.
Well the life thing and being found is interesting to me. Again, as carbon based life forms, I am willing to bet that we will never contact another civilization. They most likely have to abide by the same rules of physics we have to live by, making contact impossible. maybe, we are just unlucky and are in a sector of the universe where there is just no other life forms around. I'm willing to bet there are systems out there, maybe with multiple planets that can support life. and those beings, even in the same system, evolved differently.
As far as another level of existence, I believe it's possible. How it exists in obviously unclear. Does it abide by our physical laws or does it somehow have it's own set of rules?
 

Galileo

Footballguy
I am not trying to wordsmith at all, and it is not my intent to marginalize your thoughts. I truly believe one of the breakdowns in communication between the scientific community and the general population is a lack of consistency in how terminology is used. In the scientific community, a theory is, very specifically, an explanation that has been repeatedly tested and is supported by observation and measurement. Unfortunately, there are many who dismiss anything labeled as theory simply because they think it is something not necessarily true or established on a whim. This leads to people thinking they can choose not to believe the theory. Theory, to a scientist, is not a random thought or a shot in the dark. It is a thoroughly vetted account of a natural phenomenon. I am not aware of any evidence that would support the ideas you pose in the OP. I think it should definitely be distinguished from "theory". The more we claim random musings to be theory, the less credence is given to actual scientific theory.

Aside from the linguistic disconnect, I am still not seeing how the mass-energy equivalence, a product of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, offers any rationale for why some matter would exist that interacts gravitationally but not in other ways matter typically interacts.
 

3C's

Footballguy
I believe what G is saying is that theory is not the word you're looking for. Possibly hypothesis is more correct.

Well fun...We can wordsmith all day...Is that truly the point?
Yes?
Ok..Appreciate your input. You win the wordsmith award. You must feel great!
Guess what, it wasn't me who questioned your word usage but tried to assist in explaining the previous reply. How bout you take a small dose of chill?
Again, appreciate your input to this discussion tremendously. You have added significant value here!
You're welcome. Just trying to move a boring thread along. Keep on being super mike.
Well it's unfortunate you find the thread, after a couple posts, boring. Maybe moving on to the grill thread might suit you more comfortably? I understand sometimes these things, especially when involving things like physics or other ideas, are a little much for people and can bore them. It can be hard to have a conversation or add input when the concept is beyond a certain level of understanding. I get that. I will say your input really helped speed things along however.
lol, says the one who used theory in place of hypothesis.
Wow...This is REALLLY REALLY important to you. I apologize. I really had no idea. Please accept my apology
lol! Things that are important to me: family, good health, a good beer. Things that are not important to me: your whining.
 

supermike80

Footballguy
I believe what G is saying is that theory is not the word you're looking for. Possibly hypothesis is more correct.

Well fun...We can wordsmith all day...Is that truly the point?
Yes?
Ok..Appreciate your input. You win the wordsmith award. You must feel great!
Guess what, it wasn't me who questioned your word usage but tried to assist in explaining the previous reply. How bout you take a small dose of chill?
Again, appreciate your input to this discussion tremendously. You have added significant value here!
You're welcome. Just trying to move a boring thread along. Keep on being super mike.
Well it's unfortunate you find the thread, after a couple posts, boring. Maybe moving on to the grill thread might suit you more comfortably? I understand sometimes these things, especially when involving things like physics or other ideas, are a little much for people and can bore them. It can be hard to have a conversation or add input when the concept is beyond a certain level of understanding. I get that. I will say your input really helped speed things along however.
lol, says the one who used theory in place of hypothesis.
Wow...This is REALLLY REALLY important to you. I apologize. I really had no idea. Please accept my apology
lol! Things that are important to me: family, good health, a good beer. Things that are not important to me: your whining.
Feel free to share more. This is good stuff
 

GordonGekko

Footballguy
Well the life thing and being found is interesting to me. Again, as carbon based life forms, I am willing to bet that we will never contact another civilization. They most likely have to abide by the same rules of physics we have to live by, making contact impossible. maybe, we are just unlucky and are in a sector of the universe where there is just no other life forms around. I'm willing to bet there are systems out there, maybe with multiple planets that can support life. and those beings, even in the same system, evolved differently.
As far as another level of existence, I believe it's possible. How it exists in obviously unclear. Does it abide by our physical laws or does it somehow have it's own set of rules?

I got into media optics partly because I was deeply into evolutionary biology and behavioral psychology. But looking at how humans have developed over time, what was the motive for expansion and exploration?

It was generally built upon an imperative regarding the resource/asset base in question. It's part of our survival adaptation to seek to secure more and more resources.

So will aliens come here just looking to enrich their understanding of the universe? Or will the motive base be about wanting "something"? This is the basis, IMHO, of what Stephen Hawking discussed when he talked about the likelihood of alien life forms being openly "hostile" to humanity.

In practical terms, if aliens show up, in whatever form, I fully believe they are going to be nothing more than your standard low rent carjacker. They will be here to steal our stuff and kill us all.

Ask @Lehigh98 , we need the Argo and a Wave Motion Cannon to have a fighting chance.
 

supermike80

Footballguy

GordonGekko

Footballguy
Aside from the linguistic disconnect, I am still not seeing how the mass-energy equivalence, a product of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, offers any rationale for why some matter would exist that interacts gravitationally but not in other ways matter typically interacts.


RIGHT HERE!


We’re off to outer space
We’re leaving mother Earth
To save, the human race
Our Star Blazers!

Searching for a distant star
Heading off to Iscandar
Leaving all we love behind
Who knows what dangers we’ll find!

We must be strong and brave
Our home we have to save
If we don’t in just one year
Mother Earth will disappear!

Fighting with the Gamalons
We won’t stop until we’ve won
Then we’ll return and when we arrive
The Earth will survive with our Star Blazers!
 

supermike80

Footballguy
I am not trying to wordsmith at all, and it is not my intent to marginalize your thoughts. I truly believe one of the breakdowns in communication between the scientific community and the general population is a lack of consistency in how terminology is used. In the scientific community, a theory is, very specifically, an explanation that has been repeatedly tested and is supported by observation and measurement. Unfortunately, there are many who dismiss anything labeled as theory simply because they think it is something not necessarily true or established on a whim. This leads to people thinking they can choose not to believe the theory. Theory, to a scientist, is not a random thought or a shot in the dark. It is a thoroughly vetted account of a natural phenomenon. I am not aware of any evidence that would support the ideas you pose in the OP. I think it should definitely be distinguished from "theory". The more we claim random musings to be theory, the less credence is given to actual scientific theory.

Aside from the linguistic disconnect, I am still not seeing how the mass-energy equivalence, a product of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, offers any rationale for why some matter would exist that interacts gravitationally but not in other ways matter typically interacts.
Ok so. If we can move on from that. I am unbelievably, monumentally sorry I used the word "theory." I really honestly and truly didn't know it would have such a massive impact. So I changed my post.
Now to your second paragraph, since we have hopefully moved on from my guffaw. My point it no one yet understands what dark matter is. We can detect it, somewhat. But we don't know what it is. Are you saying from your chair the laws of physics that we have drawn are the absolute end all be all and there is absolutely no possible way things can interact in a different manner? Are you taking the somewhat human centric position that we know it all? Cause I don't buy that, for a hot second.
 

Galileo

Footballguy
For a physicist, that was a strange reply. Someone cannot have a theory without evidence? That literally makes no sense at all. I apologize that you don't understand a "higher plane of existence" but, again, I think those locked in the world of physics have a tendency to believe(falsely in my opinion) that the only physics that can exist is what we can think of.

You guys use the cat analogy. The theory is that if you give a cat a book on quantum mechanics....no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, no matter how long it takes, that cat will never understand quantum mechanics. I believe the same is true for humans. There could quite possibly be things in the universe we will never understand or know. Our intelligence level doesn't allow for it. To think the entire universe exists and lives by laws we have, is quite frankly seriously short sighted.
I sort of looked past this post originally after getting caught up in the theory discussion that overtook the thread. There is a lot to bite off here that is really a separate discussion than what was posed in the OP regarding dark matter.

I don't disagree with you at all regarding the bolded. That very well may end up being true. Even if we could eventually understand it all there is a good chance we fizzle out as a species before we do. Science/Physics does not claim to have all the answers. I am very comfortable with the idea of not knowing. I am comfortable enough with not knowing that I find no need to create answers in the realm of the supernatural to satisfy my shortcomings. However, I am very confident that the processes and methods of science (when implemented with integrity, of course) provide the path towards understanding. The reliance on objective evidence and repeatability safeguard against emotional, speculative, and biased interpretations of nature. When we uncover evidence for "new physics" that holds up to the rigors of the scientific process, I will gladly embrace it. Furthermore, the discovery of "new physics", does not negate what has already been established. It merely means new theories emerge that incorporate both the old and new.
 
Last edited:

Galileo

Footballguy
Ok so. If we can move on from that. I am unbelievably, monumentally sorry I used the word "theory." I really honestly and truly didn't know it would have such a massive impact. So I changed my post.
Now to your second paragraph, since we have hopefully moved on from my guffaw. My point it no one yet understands what dark matter is. We can detect it, somewhat. But we don't know what it is. Are you saying from your chair the laws of physics that we have drawn are the absolute end all be all and there is absolutely no possible way things can interact in a different manner? Are you taking the somewhat human centric position that we know it all? Cause I don't buy that, for a hot second.
I think my previous, post that was being written before seeing yours here, addresses some of the questions you raise here about knowing it all...

On the specific issue of dark matter, you are right. We have no idea what it is. We definitely see evidence of its existence based on our current understanding of gravity. However, we have been searching fruitlessly for quite a while now. Either we are going to eventually find the source OR we are going to have to adjust our understanding of gravitation to incorporate what we see and measure. There are some who are starting to doubt the existence of dark matter. We know our theory of gravitation is at best incomplete because we can't currently reconcile it with quantum mechanics.

ETA...whatever adjustment may come in the future for our theory of gravity would not discount what we already have established. We have been using our current understanding of gravitation very effectively for long a time. There must be merit to it even if incomplete.
 

supermike80

Footballguy
For a physicist, that was a strange reply. Someone cannot have a theory without evidence? That literally makes no sense at all. I apologize that you don't understand a "higher plane of existence" but, again, I think those locked in the world of physics have a tendency to believe(falsely in my opinion) that the only physics that can exist is what we can think of.

You guys use the cat analogy. The theory is that if you give a cat a book on quantum mechanics....no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, no matter how long it takes, that cat will never understand quantum mechanics. I believe the same is true for humans. There could quite possibly be things in the universe we will never understand or know. Our intelligence level doesn't allow for it. To think the entire universe exists and lives by laws we have, is quite frankly seriously short sighted.
I sort of looked past this post originally after getting caught up in the theory discussion that overtook the thread. There is a lot to bite off here that is really a separate discussion than what was posed in the OP regarding dark matter.

I don't disagree with you at all regarding the bolded. That very well may end up being true. Even if we could eventually understand it all there is a good chance we fizzle out as a species before we do. Science/Physics does not claim to have all the answers. I am very comfortable with the idea of not knowing. I am comfortable enough with not knowing that I find no need to create answers in the realm of the supernatural to satisfy my shortcomings. However, I am very confident that the processes and methods of science (when implemented with integrity, of course) provide the path towards understanding. The reliance on objective evidence and repeatability safeguards against emotional, speculative, and biased interpretations of nature. When we uncover evidence for "new physics" that holds up to the rigors of the scientific process, I will gladly embrace it. Furthermore, the discovery of "new physics", does not negate what has already been established. It merely means new theories emerge that incorporate both the old and new.
Well, I will say, again back to the cat reference that while our physics may explain our world, I am not willing to say it holds true everywhere. I just don't believe it. As far as creating answers, it's just chit chat. There is no need to do it due to shortcomings. It is entirely possible, and I would say likely, that the "new physics" will never hold up to the rigors of the scientific process, because we just dont know how those processes work And finally, I agree with you "new physics" doesn't replace what we know. It could be just knowing more.
 

supermike80

Footballguy
Ok so. If we can move on from that. I am unbelievably, monumentally sorry I used the word "theory." I really honestly and truly didn't know it would have such a massive impact. So I changed my post.
Now to your second paragraph, since we have hopefully moved on from my guffaw. My point it no one yet understands what dark matter is. We can detect it, somewhat. But we don't know what it is. Are you saying from your chair the laws of physics that we have drawn are the absolute end all be all and there is absolutely no possible way things can interact in a different manner? Are you taking the somewhat human centric position that we know it all? Cause I don't buy that, for a hot second.
I think my previous, post that was being written before seeing yours here, addresses some of the questions you raise here about knowing it all...

On the specific issue of dark matter, you are right. We have no idea what it is. We definitely see evidence of its existence based on our current understanding of gravity. However, we have been searching fruitlessly for quite a while now. Either we are going to eventually find the source OR we are going to have to adjust our understanding of gravitation to incorporate what we see and measure. There are some who are starting to doubt the existence of dark matter. We know our theory of gravitation is at best incomplete because we can't currently reconcile it with quantum mechanics.

ETA...whatever adjustment may come in the future for our theory of gravity would not discount what we already have established. We have been using our current understanding of gravitation very effectively for long a time. There must be merit to it even if incomplete.
See and I disagree some what. It is likely we will never discover the source but at the same time, and changing our understanding is fine, but we would need a reason to do so.
 

Galileo

Footballguy
Ok so. If we can move on from that. I am unbelievably, monumentally sorry I used the word "theory." I really honestly and truly didn't know it would have such a massive impact. So I changed my post.
Now to your second paragraph, since we have hopefully moved on from my guffaw. My point it no one yet understands what dark matter is. We can detect it, somewhat. But we don't know what it is. Are you saying from your chair the laws of physics that we have drawn are the absolute end all be all and there is absolutely no possible way things can interact in a different manner? Are you taking the somewhat human centric position that we know it all? Cause I don't buy that, for a hot second.
I think my previous, post that was being written before seeing yours here, addresses some of the questions you raise here about knowing it all...

On the specific issue of dark matter, you are right. We have no idea what it is. We definitely see evidence of its existence based on our current understanding of gravity. However, we have been searching fruitlessly for quite a while now. Either we are going to eventually find the source OR we are going to have to adjust our understanding of gravitation to incorporate what we see and measure. There are some who are starting to doubt the existence of dark matter. We know our theory of gravitation is at best incomplete because we can't currently reconcile it with quantum mechanics.

ETA...whatever adjustment may come in the future for our theory of gravity would not discount what we already have established. We have been using our current understanding of gravitation very effectively for long a time. There must be merit to it even if incomplete.
See and I disagree some what. It is likely we will never discover the source but at the same time, and changing our understanding is fine, but we would need a reason to do so.
I fully agree. No one is advocating that we simply make up a new theory of gravity. Any alterations that would come about would only happen because the evidence supports doing so. The objective evidence needs to be the reason. For the record, I am not ready to throw in the towel on the search for dark matter. We have evidence today of the existence of so many more fundamental particles then were ever imagined 100 years ago. It is a product of figuring out where to look and having the technology available to do so.
 

GordonGekko

Footballguy
...... I am very comfortable with the idea of not knowing. I am comfortable enough with not knowing that I find no need to create answers in the realm of the supernatural to satisfy my shortcomings. However, I am very confident that the processes and methods of science (when implemented with integrity, of course) provide the path towards understanding. The reliance on objective evidence and repeatability safeguard against emotional, speculative, and biased interpretations of nature....


April 12 1633

Galileo is accused of heresy


On April 12, 1633, chief inquisitor Father Vincenzo Maculani da Firenzuola, appointed by Pope Urban VIII, begins the inquisition of physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei. Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. Standard practice demanded that the accused be imprisoned and secluded during the trial.

This was the second time that Galileo was in the hot seat for refusing to accept Church orthodoxy that the Earth was the immovable center of the universe: In 1616, he had been forbidden from holding or defending his beliefs. In the 1633 interrogation, Galileo denied that he “held” belief in the Copernican view but continued to write about the issue and evidence as a means of “discussion” rather than belief. The Church had decided the idea that the sun moved around the Earth was an absolute fact of scripture that could not be disputed, despite the fact that scientists had known for centuries that the Earth was not the center of the universe.

This time, Galileo’s technical argument didn’t win the day. On June 22, 1633, the Church handed down the following order: “We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo… have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world.”

Along with the order came the following penalty: “We order that by a public edict the book of Dialogues of Galileo Galilei be prohibited, and We condemn thee to the prison of this Holy Office during Our will and pleasure; and as a salutary penance We enjoin on thee that for the space of three years thou shalt recite once a week the Seven Penitential Psalms.”

Galileo agreed not to teach the heresy anymore and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. It took more than 300 years for the Church to admit that Galileo was right and to clear his name of heresy.


https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-accused-of-heresy



******


Just a thought. Take a look at your screen name again. Then consider non STEMs shouldn't be held to the standard of others in the math, technology and science realm.

If someone is curious about math and science, let us encourage that curiosity. In those specific cases, educating others with a soft hand is a more practical way to win hearts and minds.
 

Galileo

Footballguy
For a physicist, that was a strange reply. Someone cannot have a theory without evidence? That literally makes no sense at all. I apologize that you don't understand a "higher plane of existence" but, again, I think those locked in the world of physics have a tendency to believe(falsely in my opinion) that the only physics that can exist is what we can think of.

You guys use the cat analogy. The theory is that if you give a cat a book on quantum mechanics....no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, no matter how long it takes, that cat will never understand quantum mechanics. I believe the same is true for humans. There could quite possibly be things in the universe we will never understand or know. Our intelligence level doesn't allow for it. To think the entire universe exists and lives by laws we have, is quite frankly seriously short sighted.
I sort of looked past this post originally after getting caught up in the theory discussion that overtook the thread. There is a lot to bite off here that is really a separate discussion than what was posed in the OP regarding dark matter.

I don't disagree with you at all regarding the bolded. That very well may end up being true. Even if we could eventually understand it all there is a good chance we fizzle out as a species before we do. Science/Physics does not claim to have all the answers. I am very comfortable with the idea of not knowing. I am comfortable enough with not knowing that I find no need to create answers in the realm of the supernatural to satisfy my shortcomings. However, I am very confident that the processes and methods of science (when implemented with integrity, of course) provide the path towards understanding. The reliance on objective evidence and repeatability safeguards against emotional, speculative, and biased interpretations of nature. When we uncover evidence for "new physics" that holds up to the rigors of the scientific process, I will gladly embrace it. Furthermore, the discovery of "new physics", does not negate what has already been established. It merely means new theories emerge that incorporate both the old and new.
Well, I will say, again back to the cat reference that while our physics may explain our world, I am not willing to say it holds true everywhere. I just don't believe it. As far as creating answers, it's just chit chat. There is no need to do it due to shortcomings. It is entirely possible, and I would say likely, that the "new physics" will never hold up to the rigors of the scientific process, because we just dont know how those processes work And finally, I agree with you "new physics" doesn't replace what we know. It could be just knowing more.
Let the objective evidence tell the story and leave belief out of the equation. If we are relying on belief as the basis of reasoning for anything, then it is not a matter of science.
 

Galileo

Footballguy
Just a thought. Take a look at your screen name again. Then consider non STEMs shouldn't be held to the standard of others in the math, technology and science realm.

If someone is curious about math and science, let us encourage that curiosity. In those specific cases, educating others with a soft hand is a more practical way to win hearts and minds.
Have I done differently in this thread?

And the story of Galileo you share is indeed a sad one.
 

supermike80

Footballguy
For a physicist, that was a strange reply. Someone cannot have a theory without evidence? That literally makes no sense at all. I apologize that you don't understand a "higher plane of existence" but, again, I think those locked in the world of physics have a tendency to believe(falsely in my opinion) that the only physics that can exist is what we can think of.

You guys use the cat analogy. The theory is that if you give a cat a book on quantum mechanics....no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, no matter how long it takes, that cat will never understand quantum mechanics. I believe the same is true for humans. There could quite possibly be things in the universe we will never understand or know. Our intelligence level doesn't allow for it. To think the entire universe exists and lives by laws we have, is quite frankly seriously short sighted.
I sort of looked past this post originally after getting caught up in the theory discussion that overtook the thread. There is a lot to bite off here that is really a separate discussion than what was posed in the OP regarding dark matter.

I don't disagree with you at all regarding the bolded. That very well may end up being true. Even if we could eventually understand it all there is a good chance we fizzle out as a species before we do. Science/Physics does not claim to have all the answers. I am very comfortable with the idea of not knowing. I am comfortable enough with not knowing that I find no need to create answers in the realm of the supernatural to satisfy my shortcomings. However, I am very confident that the processes and methods of science (when implemented with integrity, of course) provide the path towards understanding. The reliance on objective evidence and repeatability safeguards against emotional, speculative, and biased interpretations of nature. When we uncover evidence for "new physics" that holds up to the rigors of the scientific process, I will gladly embrace it. Furthermore, the discovery of "new physics", does not negate what has already been established. It merely means new theories emerge that incorporate both the old and new.
Well, I will say, again back to the cat reference that while our physics may explain our world, I am not willing to say it holds true everywhere. I just don't believe it. As far as creating answers, it's just chit chat. There is no need to do it due to shortcomings. It is entirely possible, and I would say likely, that the "new physics" will never hold up to the rigors of the scientific process, because we just dont know how those processes work And finally, I agree with you "new physics" doesn't replace what we know. It could be just knowing more.
Let the objective evidence tell the story and leave belief out of the equation. If we are relying on belief as the basis of reasoning for anything, then it is not a matter of science.
See that in my opinion is limiting. Again, it isn't reasoning, its pondering. Since this idea can;t be tested by science, it can't be proved by science. That in itself does not make it untrue.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top