Any Physicists Here?

[reclavea]

Physicists today still have no idea just exactly what energy and gravity are.

Theoretical Physics with all its vulnerabilities and notions has devised a theory that conforms to supposed observations and made it the paradigm.

When new empirical evidence comes along that defies the model ...they adjust the model with “bootstraps” to keep the model’s integrity and the paradigm.

After a while there are so many “bootstraps” that the model no longer holds any integrity and in fact becomes simply so ugly and unacceptable.

As opposed to the philosophical multiverse bootstrap ....The biggest and most profound “bootstraps” to date that has potential for integrity and considerations is “Dark Energy & Dark Matter”

Many people are totally unaware of the huge crisis physics and cosmology are in today as a result of these!

They’ve been desperately trying for over 50 years to find and confirm Dark Energy and Dark Matter and to this day have not discovered the slightest bit of credible evidence these exist.

Here’s the problem ....

Dark Energy and Dark Matter comprise 96% of the theory!! :-0

In essence ....the theory is missing 96% of what it needs. This theory is taught as fact in the worlds academia!

It’s akin to someone losing a coin at night in the middle of a street ...but decides to look under a lamp post 30 feet away ...because there is more light!!

In essence...their endeavors are going about in eternal circles because should the answers be on the right ...they will never find it steadfast and determined to seek it on the left.

They are determined to find and confirm Dark Energy and Dark Matter at all costs.

Scientific endeavors not promoting the preferred theoretical model has no chance of getting funding.

 

[Tonedeaf]

Someone else may have mentioned this, but "dark matter" is a misnomer. They gave it that name because they had no idea what else to call it. Right?

 

[reclavea]

Someone else may have mentioned this, but "dark matter" is a misnomer. They gave it that name because they had no idea what else to call it. Right?

Actually no.

Dark Matter according to the theoretical physicists is simply matter that cannot be seen, observed or detected.

They are assuming it exists because of the supposed effects they have on other detectable and observable matter.

Hence “Dark Matter”

The same with “Dark Energy”

It’s a wonder when you know just exactly how they came up with these

 

[Rex]

Someone else may have mentioned this, but "dark matter" is a misnomer. They gave it that name because they had no idea what else to call it. Right?

We know what gravity and energy do. We can accurately predict the movements of objects in space, using just our knowledge of gravity and energy. But some things move in ways that we can only explain if there is matter there that we can't see. Example: we see a distant star moving in circles. That would make sense if there were another star that we can't see — dark and dead — for it to orbit around. "Dark" matter. The universe behaves as if it's there, and the universe doesn't care whether we can see it or not.

When new empirical evidence comes along that defies the model ...they adjust the model with “bootstraps” to keep the model’s integrity and the paradigm.

After a while there are so many “bootstraps” that the model no longer holds any integrity and in fact becomes simply so ugly and unacceptable.

When new empirical evidence comes along, the model is modified to maintain its integrity. That's the beauty of science — it develops and grows in response to new knowledge.That's what took us from throwing rocks to turning those rocks into the computer you're typing on. "Ugly and unacceptable?" It's our best understanding of the universe. Who has a better one?

In essence ....the theory is missing 96% of what it needs. This theory is taught as fact in the worlds academia!

This theory is taught as our best understanding of the universe. Our best explanation for the way things are. It is not taught as absolute knowledge (though it's sometimes presented that way in the popular media, which is not very good at science). When new knowledge comes along, it will be incorporated into the model. Call it a "bootstrap" if you like, but would you have it any other way?

They are determined to find and confirm Dark Energy and Dark Matter at all costs.

Where did you hear that? Science is determined to discover truth by interrogating nature.


There's a popular misconception: "Because we don't know everything, we don't know anything." That's wrong.

 

[reclavea]

We know what gravity and energy do. We can accurately predict the movements of objects in space, using just our knowledge of gravity and energy. But some things move in ways that we can only explain if there is matter there that we can't see. Example: we see a distant star moving in circles. That would make sense if there were another star that we can't see — dark and dead — for it to orbit around. "Dark" matter. The universe behaves as if it's there, and the universe doesn't care whether we can see it or not.

The term “Dark Matter” as I pointed and what the Standard Model lambdaCDM incorporates is of a totally different physics as opposed to your dead star. They have it permeating the entire universe only because they see motions that doesn’t fit what their preferred model entails. The cause can be of something else other than Dark Matter.

When new empirical evidence comes along, the model is modified to maintain its integrity. That's the beauty of science — it develops and grows in response to new knowledge.That's what took us from throwing rocks to turning those rocks into the computer you're typing on. "Ugly and unacceptable?" It's our best understanding of the universe. Who has a better one?

You’re apparently totally unaware of other models that can account for the old and the new empirical data without the need for such “bootstraps”.

And yes ...the models can turn seriously ugly when the models are developed because of preferred cosmological bias. ie.....”bootstrapping” the model so the new evidence which actually counters the model ...in some complicated awkward way makes them conform.

The true scientific method (which has been abused) is not in question...however corrupt science is.

This theory is taught as our best understanding of the universe. Our best explanation for the way things are. It is not taught as absolute knowledge (though it's sometimes presented that way in the popular media, which is not very good at science). When new knowledge comes along, it will be incorporated into the model. Call it a "bootstrap" if you like, but would you have it any other way?

Yes it’s taught as our best understanding...but is it in fact?

Think of these so called experts as Bernie Madoff saying we’re the experts and we’ll provide you the best returns for your money. The highest in society including billionaires got duped. How much more in the classrooms?

Where did you hear that? Science is determined to discover truth by interrogating nature.

Because if they don’t positively find it ....there goes their whole model!! Blown up in a Big Bang!

Again ...they conjured up these 2 things to fit their model ...because if something other than Dark Energy and Dark Matter is the cause ...their whole model again blows up.

This is why they MUST find them! Again over 50 years of the finest and brightest scientists with more and more technical sophisticated equipment ...and still to this day ....Nada. I’ve seen physics forums go nuts at any slight news of confirmation only to find out ...false alarm. Maybe because they’re simply a fabrication “bootstraps” on a false model?

It’s seriously frustrating them because they seriously have them at 96% of the universe!! The other 4% is the matter we see and detect!

In a way it’s hilarious as they conjured these things up. They painted themselves into a corner and there’s no way out! Lol...they MUST find them.

Many credible and esteemed physicists have abandoned the model or have downright downplayed the cosmology.

There's a popular misconception: "Because we don't know everything, we don't know anything." That's wrong.

That is your insinuation of this discourse which is totally false.

 

[yyz67]

Just because we don't understand [what we think is] 96% of the matter/energy of the universe, doesn't invalidate the usefulness or accuracy of what we do know about normal gravity and normal matter for normal life on Earth. Newton's laws still apply in 99.9% of cases, for example sending humans to the moon or the JWST to Sun-Earth L2. So far any local effects of Dark Matter in our stellar neighborhood are believed to be tiny, way smaller than GR effects. However, we do need Einstein's GR to correct clocks in GPS satellites w.r.t. earth clocks.

"Bootstrapping" or modifying existing models (MOND etc) or otherwise devising a whole new framework are all part of science...

I wonder if the universe likes to reveal our hubris and how ignorant we are. We thought two centuries ago that we had it all figured out (wrongly attributed to Lord Kelvin):

While it is never safe to affirm that the future of Physical Science has no marvels in store even more astonishing than those of the past, it seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established and that further advances are to be sought chiefly in the rigorous application of these principles to all the phenomena which come under our notice. It is here that the science of measurement shows its importance — where quantitative work is more to be desired than qualitative work. An eminent physicist remarked that the future truths of physical science are to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals.

 

[Rex]

The term “Dark Matter” as I pointed and what the Standard Model lambdaCDM incorporates is of a totally different physics as opposed to your dead star. They have it permeating the entire universe only because they see motions that doesn’t fit what their preferred model entails.

They're both examples of an unseen something that affects behavior. Which model do you prefer?

Again ...they conjured up these 2 things to fit their model ...because if something other than Dark Energy and Dark Matter is the cause ...their whole model again blows up.

And if their model blows up... what? They're guaranteed another 500 years of employment.

I’ve seen physics forums go nuts at any slight news of confirmation only to find out ...false alarm.

Forums go nuts all the time, for a thousand reasons. That's not a reliable gauge of truth.

 

[NeoSound]

We know what gravity and energy do. We can accurately predict the movements of objects in space, using just our knowledge of gravity and energy. But some things move in ways that we can only explain if there is matter there that we can't see. Example: we see a distant star moving in circles. That would make sense if there were another star that we can't see — dark and dead — for it to orbit around. "Dark" matter. The universe behaves as if it's there, and the universe doesn't care whether we can see it or not.

Why is the universe expanding? Would not dark matter create just the opposite? Or does it attract or repel depending on mood?

When new empirical evidence comes along, the model is modified to maintain its integrity. That's the beauty of science — it develops and grows in response to new knowledge.That's what took us from throwing rocks to turning those rocks into the computer you're typing on. "Ugly and unacceptable?" It's our best understanding of the universe. Who has a better one?

It seems more that when new evidence comes along that doesn't fit the model, we modify the data, so it maintains what we already understand. Which seems to work in many situations, but is it the absolute measure? Or just the best we can do with our limited capacity of understanding as a human being? Why would a clump of particle/waves care if it were throwing a rock or using a computer (merely more particle/waves (why a preference))?

This theory is taught as our best understanding of the universe. Our best explanation for the way things are. It is not taught as absolute knowledge (though it's sometimes presented that way in the popular media, which is not very good at science). When new knowledge comes along, it will be incorporated into the model. Call it a "bootstrap" if you like, but would you have it any other way?



Where did you hear that? Science is determined to discover truth by interrogating nature.


There's a popular misconception: "Because we don't know everything, we don't know anything." That's wrong.

Going against the established model usually gets someone scrutinized, labeled and locked out. No matter if they were wrong, partially right or completely right. There are examples of this, and some are long gone before their work was picked back up and took seriously (and found to be right). Things are more easily accepted if you go with the flow.

We look for the familiar in things and when we find something (a grain of sand in the milky way?), we are wired to feel like we know it and have conquered all knowledge.

If all matter can be explained with math, then certainly we can be explained by the same system, just as thoughts could be. Could it be that we all hold a piece of the puzzle, or that there are no wrong ways to think of it? Pure math or something bigger at play?

 

[reclavea]

Just because we don't understand [what we think is] 96% of the matter/energy of the universe, doesn't invalidate the usefulness or accuracy of what we do know about normal gravity and normal matter for normal life on Earth. Newton's laws still apply in 99.9% of cases, for example sending humans to the moon or the JWST to Sun-Earth L2. So far any local effects of Dark Matter in our stellar neighborhood are believed to be tiny, way smaller than GR effects. However, we do need Einstein's GR to correct clocks in GPS satellites w.r.t. earth clocks.

"Bootstrapping" or modifying existing models (MOND etc) or otherwise devising a whole new framework are all part of science...

I wonder if the universe likes to reveal our hubris and how ignorant we are. We thought two centuries ago that we had it all figured out (wrongly attributed to Lord Kelvin):

Bootstrapping only came into play when theoretical physics came into the scene.

Tesla abhorred theoretical physics and rightly so imo.

"Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists."
-Nikola Tesla

Funny you quote Albert Michelson...in whom I have great admiration for and a great scientist.

He never accepted Einstein’s physics and died down believing his own experiments confirming the existence of the Aether.

A theory can be confirmed a thousand times but it only takes one failure to show that it is in error. The problem with advanced math is that it too is theoretical. How you frame the equation can change the results.

 

[reclavea]

They're both examples of an unseen something that affects behavior. Which model do you prefer?

The one pertinent to what is missing in the lambdaCDM standard model (Big Bang)

And if their model blows up... what? They're guaranteed another 500 years of employment.

Lol. No...the alternative for them is worse! Trust me ...they’d gladly take the 500 years unemployment

Forums go nuts all the time, for a thousand reasons. That's not a reliable gauge of truth.

My reference for that was the fact that they are in desperation at this stage of finding and confirming Dark Energy and Dark Matter. That’s all I’m referring to with regard to those physics forums.

They must find them! ...or the alternative kicks in!

Here’s a hint on the alternative...

Edwin Hubble finds it ....a “horror” lol

Many people do as a matter of fact ....

This is the reason for corrupt science coming on the scene

 

[Rex]

The one pertinent to what is missing in the lambdaCDM standard model (Big Bang)



Lol. No...the alternative for them is worse! Trust me ...they’d gladly take the 500 years unemployment




My reference for that was the fact that they are in desperation at this stage of finding and confirming Dark Energy and Dark Matter. That’s all I’m referring to with regard to those physics forums.

They must find them! ...or the alternative kicks in!

Here’s a hint on the alternative...

Edwin Hubble finds it ....a “horror” lol

Many people do as a matter of fact ....

This is the reason for corrupt science coming on the scene

I came into this thinking I was involved in a scientific discussion. Is it possible that this is actually a theological discussion?

 

[Rex]

Why is the universe expanding? Would not dark matter create just the opposite? Or does it attract or repel depending on mood?

That’s the “dark energy” part.

It seems more that when new evidence comes along that doesn't fit the model, we modify the data, so it maintains what we already understand.

Who does that?

Going against the established model usually gets someone scrutinized...

As it should. Skepticism is a basic principle of science. If you’re going to say that everyone who came before you is wrong, you need to be able to back that up.

...labeled and locked out.

I don’t see that. Every milestone in science came from someone who successfully challenged the status quo by holding up to scrutiny.

 

[yyz67]

@reclavea, I was a high-energy experimental physicist (working at Fermilab) and yeah, there is a lot of money in "big science" as well as career puffery (theorists always needing to publish) but there are also a lot of earnest people trying to discover new things (within that system). Is it incomplete and flawed? Sure, it's a human enterprise.

At the same time, the "foundations" of physics (material reality) and also metaphysics (all of reality) have never been established, only postulated or assumed. This is why religion is so diverse and also why science goes a little haywire (wild west) with new phenomena it can't explain leading to a relative explosion of modified and new hypotheses and theories. This is how it has gone for quite awhile.

To me that we have no clue about some primary aspects of reality -- objective and subjective -- shouldn't be surprising but it doesn't sit well with religious or scientific dogmatists.

 

[NeoSound]

That’s the “dark energy” part.

It's energy alright, just not dark energy.

Who does that?

Every time the current model breaks, we don't go back to the drawing board. We find a side equation to cover the inaccuracy of the main one. It's been done many times. Not a true fix, just a band-aid.

As it should. Skepticism is a basic principle of science. If you’re going to say that everyone who came before you is wrong, you need to be able to back that up.

Skepticism is a great tool, it can also be a great weapon if you feel your place is threatened.

I don’t see that. Every milestone in science came from someone who successfully challenged the status quo by holding up to scrutiny.

There have been many black-balled, some for good cause and some not. Cancel culture has always been around. People don't speak up because of fear.

 

[Rex]

It's energy alright, just not dark energy.

What, then?

Every time the current model breaks, we don't go back to the drawing board. We find a side equation to cover the inaccuracy of the main one. It's been done many times. Not a true fix, just a band-aid.

When part of your car breaks, you don't destroy your car and build another one from scratch. And when new information comes in, you don't abandon your carefully-constructed and tested models without a pretty strong reason.

Skepticism is a great tool, it can also be a great weapon if you feel your place is threatened.

I see a lot of that.

There have been many black-balled, some for good cause and some not. Cancel culture has always been around. People don't speak up because of fear.

Black-balled scientists with unpopular ideas who live in fear? I've heard people speak of them, but no one has ever shown me one.

 

[NeoSound]

What, then?


When part of your car breaks, you don't destroy your car and build another one from scratch. And when new information comes in, you don't abandon your carefully-constructed and tested models without a pretty strong reason.


I see a lot of that.


Black-balled scientists with unpopular ideas who live in fear? I've heard people speak of them, but no one has ever shown me one.

 

[yyz67]

It's all shit! Take it all down/out! Blow it all up!

 

[Musikron]

The universe is electric. All forces of nature are just the EM force at different scales. Standard model cosmology is wrong.

 

[StratPIt]

Here is another theory

A library with many books and each book has hundreds of pages, the books together have a weight of 1000kg.
If I now digitize all these books as accurately as possible, they still fit on a USB stick that weighs less than 100g?

If we could now digitize even more accurately in 3D.... Is it only a question of storage capacity?

Does an atom weigh as much as a bit

And is the difference dark energy?

Kind of exciting to think about.

 

[NeoSound]

What, then?

Energy = a flow of something to where there is an absence or lesser amount of that same thing present. When approaching equilibrium energy slows. When it reaches a balance point, it stops. If so much of the universe is filled with dark matter and dark energy (96%?) there would be very little space (4-5%?) to create a flow of anything. It would definitely be noticeable (and observable) as it tried to balance with that small void in itself.

No matter how well someone has been schooled in mathematics or traditional theories, they still are human, have strengths, weaknesses and bias. Plus, all of these governing systems were designed by people. It's interesting to study but there are holes and patches everywhere. There's a lot not talked about or just completely ignored because it can't be explained by accepted or traditional methods.