FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 13 of 15 [215 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Next
Author Message
stephen@nomail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 681

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:50 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:

stephen@nomail.com wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:

snip

In other words, TomGee wants desperately to play pick-up basketball
with the rest of the boys, but he can't dribble and he can't block. So
he says, "You have to play by *your* rules, but I only have to play by
*mine*, and that's still fair because I say it is."

PD

Did you see where he said that observations are not evidence?

Stephen

To you they're evidence, to real scientists they are observed
effects. More often than not, initial explanations for such
effects turn out to have been wrong. You still believe that the
earth is the center of the u., since the "evidence" proves that.

Observations are evidence. In fact, they are the only
evidence that counts in science. However in science,
evidence does not prove anything. It is entirely possible
for more than one theory to be consistent with the evidence.
The important thing is that a theory must be consistent
with all the evidence. I am aware of no theory that places
the earth at the center of the universe that is consistent
with all the observed evidence.

Of course not; at least, not anymore. At one time, there
was plenty of evidence that earth is the center of the
universe, because all one had to do to know that was to
observe the moon, the sun, and the stars moving around
the earth, which evidently stood still.

All the evidence that the earth was the center of the
Universe is still present. But in the meantime we
have discovered lots of other evidence that tell
us that the Earth is not the center of the Universe.
That is how science works. New evidence sometimes forces us
to modify our theories of the Universe. Sometimes new
evidence supports our current theories, but any new observation
has the potential of forcing us back to the drawing board.

Exactly how we modify our theories is bit more complicated. The whole
dark matter question is an interesting example. Observations
give us information about how stars move, and how light
is bent. Our gravitational theories tell us how much mass
is needed to match the observations. The amount of visible
mass is much less than the amount predicted by our theories.
There are several solutions to this problem:
1. assume that our theories of gravitation are correct,
and that therefore there must be additional matter that
we cannot see. The phrase 'dark matter' was coined
to describe this unseen matter. This is the prevalent
opinion among scientists today.
2. assume our theories of gravitation are incorrect.
This is the approach taken by some scientists. Modified
Newtonian dynamics is an example of a different theory
of gravitation.
3. assume that the motions of the stars are not determined
mainly by gravity, and instead suppose there is some
new and unknown force that affects the stars, and decide that
dark matter has negative energy despite that being totally
at odds with the definition of dark matter, etc. That is
your approach.
There has been more and more evidence found that favors
position 1, but position 2 has not been abandoned.
Nobody but you finds position 3 the slightest bit compelling.
I am sure there are other positions as well, but only 1 and 2
have any real support.

Stephen
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:16 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

Randy Poe wrote:
Quote:
tomgee wrote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:

The
whole idea behind dark matter is that it is massive,
and it attracts other objects via gravity. That is the
definition of "dark matter". No one is assuming that
dark matter is massless, other than you. That is
the point I have been repeatedly trying to make. Nobody
thinks that dark matter has zero or negative mass. It
is in fact defined to have positive mass.

You're making up facts, now, aren't you? If not, show us
that fact you claim exists where DM is defined to have
+mass.

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

Wiki-wiki? You're using wiki-wiki the editable-by-anyone online

website for unsupported opinions? Even now that Encarta is free
online? What kind of simpleton would prefer to use a source that
he does not have to use and that any fool can edit and say
whatever he wants to in it?
Quote:

"In cosmology, dark matter refers to matter particles, of unknown
composition, that do not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic
radiation (light) to be detected directly,"
"The dark matter component has vastly more mass than the
"visible" component of the universe"

Nobody is saying it doesn't reflect any light. Merely that it doesn't
reflect enough light to be seen by our telescopes.

Everyone else but W-W is saying that, and you believe it.

We can't see any brown dwarfs either.

We can't see the other side of the moon from here either,

so what? And the Stooge above said nothing about
telescopes - you just added that in to show us you are
still misinterpreting what you read.
Quote:

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/dm.html
"When such velocity measurements are done on large scales, it turns out
that the amount of inferred mass is much more than can be explained by
the luminous stuff. Hence we infer that there is dark matter in the
Universe."


http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/darkmatter.html
"On smaller scales such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies, dynamical
estimates of the mass based on rotation curves or velocity dispersions
of galaxies indicate that 90% (not 99%) of the total mass is not seen
("sub-luminous"). This implies that the mass density of the Universe is
10% of the closure density. In this case, the sub-luminous mass could
be normal (baryonic) and be locked up in stellar remnants (white
dwarfs, neutron stars, black holes) or just in very dim stars called
"Brown Dwarfs"."

Plenty more stuff out there. Search for "dark matter" and pull up
any article on an EDU site, written by an astronomer. You will find
the same basic statements: that something like 90% of the MASS
of the universe is thought to be dark, that "dark matter" is the name
given to this MASS we can't see.

Note the list of candidates at the end of that last quote: white
dwarfs, neutron stars, black holes, brown dwarfs.

I see nothing in all those quotes about DM having positive mass.

Then show us how we can see through matter
that has +mass and +energy.

Who says we can see through it? Where are you getting this requirement
from?

The recent report I mentioned earlier shows that DM is everywhere

that RM is not, just like my model predicted. I will look for it again

and post the url here later. Sounds like you have some catching
up to do.
Quote:

Are you thinking that if it was opaque, we'd see a dark place in
the sky? The stuff we can see has gaps between it, you know. Look
at a picture of stars. Points of light, separated by black.

Yeah, but you can't see through those points of light, can you? We

can see RM objects by the light they emit or which is reflected from
them, but we cannot see through those objects, only through the
that comes from them.
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:35 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

stephen@nomail.com wrote:
Quote:
In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:

SNIP

You're making things up, or you're more confused than ever. I
did not say my words support that at all. I said I am the only
one who uses it that way, in agreement with your statements to
that effect.

Then what was the point of this sub thread? I said
"You forget that TomGee has is own personal definition of
'Dark Matter', which has nothing to do with the standard
definition."
You responded with
"Well, Stephen, you have made your bed, now you must lay in it
with all those cooties from the Stooges. Tell us, how is my
definition above different from the standard definition?"
Is this your way of agreeing with somebody? It sure does
not sound that way to me.

It is not my fault that you cannot understand what you read.

So anyway, now that you agree with my original statement,

No, you never gave a valid "std definition" at all, just your own

unsupported opinion, and so you lied about there being a such
a thing, and so why should I or anyone else agree with a lie?
Quote:

I see no point in continuing this discussion.

Neither do I, but for my own reasons.

Next time
you agree with a statement someone makes, you would save
a lot of time and effort if you just said, "yes, I agree with that",
or just say nothing at all.

I would have done that very thing if you had said something with

which I agreed.
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 6:06 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

PD wrote:
Quote:
tomgee wrote:
PD wrote:
tomgee wrote:
PD wrote:
tomgee wrote:

This is rich.

Nothing "rich" there. All I see is you grasping at strawmen.

Two posts ago, TomGee says:

Of course they do. Whatever gave you the idea our
own words don't count as support for our ideas? How
else can we explain what we mean?

And now he says:

Somewhere, somehow, someone
brainwashed you to think that your own words cannot support
your claims. If that were true, why explain anything? Just say
anything you want and if someone repeats it, that proves it's
true. Of course, there is no logic in that, is there?


In other words,

IOWs, you have to try to explain what you're talking about
here, since it looks for all the world to be only nonsense.

That's precisely right, and all I've done up to this point is quote
you. You're right, it looks for all the world to be only nonsense.

I don't see any real quotes, fool, only those you've made up, like
you make up physics. A physicist who don't know what quotes
are? Do you at least know what planet you're on?

You don't see any real quotes?
Here: let me put quotation marks around them and then show you where
you said them.
"Of course they do. Whatever gave you the idea our own words don't
count as support for our ideas? How else can we explain what we mean?"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/dbc5e07844c75407?hl=en&

"Somewhere, somehow, someone brainwashed you to think that your own
words cannot support your claims. If that were true, why explain
anything? Just say anything you want and if someone repeats it, that
proves it's true. Of course, there is no logic in that, is there?"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0c73196ed903d588?hl=en&

Now, who's the fool who doesn't recall what he says and accuses others
of making this up?

You "IOWs" is what are not quotes from me, dumbbell. You posted

quotes from me and then you misinterpreted them completely
different from what they said. You really are the worst kind of crook;

the kind who twists the truth to suit their ends. Anyone who thinks
you silly interpretation is anywhere close to what I said is just as
stupid as you are, or perhaps more, if that's possible.

You lie and cheat your way through life, hating yourself for what
you are, for having to act the fool just to try to be seen as an
ordinary human being. You have your little minions kissing your
ass and going over the cliffs with you, but others here know you
for just exactly what you are, if only because your sordid behavior
is so transparent.
Quote:

TomGee is saying:
"My ideas are supported by *my* words. I know this because I am
convinced of them. On the other hand, your ideas are not supported by
*your* words. I know this because I am not convinced of them."

That's crock, PD; you're drowning.

In other words, TomGee wants desperately to play pick-up basketball
with the rest of the boys, but he can't dribble and he can't block. So
he says, "You have to play by *your* rules, but I only have to play by
*mine*, and that's still fair because I say it is."

Ya know any physics, PD?

A bit. You?

Yes, you do. A very, very, very little bit. Too bad you can't talk

about what little you do know about physics here because it
sounds more like you don't know what you're talking about. So
you resort to childish paraphrasing of what others say to show
how little you know and how little you can understand.
Back to top
Randy Poe
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 2:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

tomgee wrote:
Quote:
Randy Poe wrote:
tomgee wrote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:
The
whole idea behind dark matter is that it is massive,
and it attracts other objects via gravity. That is the
definition of "dark matter". No one is assuming that
dark matter is massless, other than you. That is
the point I have been repeatedly trying to make. Nobody
thinks that dark matter has zero or negative mass. It
is in fact defined to have positive mass.

You're making up facts, now, aren't you?

You sure didn't take long to prove my thesis, did you?

"You're making that up" means somebody said something
you didn't personally read in your limited exposure to physics.

It's easy to see why you would believe something stupid
like that, but what makes you think anyone else but idiots
would believe that?

It would be a natural conclusion after seeing your words above
juxtaposed with a statement which is more or less common
knowledge.

- Randy
Back to top
Randy Poe
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 2:47 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

tomgee wrote:
Quote:
Randy Poe wrote:
tomgee wrote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:

The
whole idea behind dark matter is that it is massive,
and it attracts other objects via gravity. That is the
definition of "dark matter". No one is assuming that
dark matter is massless, other than you. That is
the point I have been repeatedly trying to make. Nobody
thinks that dark matter has zero or negative mass. It
is in fact defined to have positive mass.

You're making up facts, now, aren't you? If not, show us
that fact you claim exists where DM is defined to have
+mass.

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

Wiki-wiki? You're using wiki-wiki the editable-by-anyone online
website for unsupported opinions?

As the first of several links. Did you miss the others?

Quote:
Even now that Encarta is free
online? What kind of simpleton would prefer to use a source that
he does not have to use and that any fool can edit and say
whatever he wants to in it?

Did you miss the others, the ones from professional astronomers'
websites?

If you read them, did you see any discrepancy between the Wiki
article and the astronomers' articles?

- Randy
Back to top
stephen@nomail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 681

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:10 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:
Randy Poe wrote:
tomgee wrote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:

The
whole idea behind dark matter is that it is massive,
and it attracts other objects via gravity. That is the
definition of "dark matter". No one is assuming that
dark matter is massless, other than you. That is
the point I have been repeatedly trying to make. Nobody
thinks that dark matter has zero or negative mass. It
is in fact defined to have positive mass.

You're making up facts, now, aren't you? If not, show us
that fact you claim exists where DM is defined to have
+mass.

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

Wiki-wiki? You're using wiki-wiki the editable-by-anyone online
website for unsupported opinions? Even now that Encarta is free
online? What kind of simpleton would prefer to use a source that
he does not have to use and that any fool can edit and say
whatever he wants to in it?

Two things. First, Encarta is not free online. Parts of it are,
but if you want to see all the articles, you have to pay for
them. For example, one article you have to pay to see is
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579459/Dark_Matter.html
So either you are misinformed, or you lied about the Encarta being
free. Second, according to you "Encarta leaves out a few important facts"
and "throws in a some opinions as facts." So why should anyone
believe Encarta? You apparently do not. So why recommend an
inaccurate source of information for which you have to pay?

Stephen
Back to top
kenseto
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:12 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:8J-dnRvf9rpweCbZnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
Quote:
kenseto wrote:
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message

Take a clock that has time t between ticks when I hold it in my hand.
Define t' as the time I measure between ticks when that clock is
moving at velocity v with respect to me. Describe a physical setup
and the equation f which gives t'=f(t,v,c) such that t'<t. What's the
equation for f in the given variables? Not a word like gamma or
mxztplk, but an equation only in t,v and c. It must yield a t'<t to
satisfy your claim.

Sigh......
t'=t/gamma
where gamma=1/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2

Using the definitions above for t and t' I think you meant t'=t*gamma.
Right? What you wrote is true for transformation of frequency, not
period, so let's work with frequency instead of time.

f'=f/gamma

BTW, that expression obtains only at the moment when the moving
clock's velocity is entirely transverse to you, i.e. the moment when
the component of the clock's velocity toward or away from you is zero.
Otherwise there is a non-relativistic Doppler correction term as well
(due simply to the fact that light has a propegation velocity) which
can make the relative magnitudes of f' and f arbitrary in the general
case. But for the case you are trying to make, that f' can be greater
than f, we can choose _any_ point in time to be the time we take the
measurement.

But let's see where that takes us because in an inertial universe
every object moving with respect to you will have had or will have the
moment where f'=f/gamma describes the situation.

To have a f' > f at that moment (observed frequency is shifted up)
requires

gamma < 1

Substituting the definition of gamma

1/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2 < 1

Multiplying by (1-v^2/c^2)^1/2

1 < (1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2

Squaring

1 < 1 - v^2/c^2

Subtracting 1

0 < - v^2/c^2

Adding v^2/c^2

v^2/c^2 < 0

Multiplying by c^2

v^2 < 0

Oops. That could only be true if v is imaginary and we are working
with real physical measurements.

We see that f' > f leads to a contradiction and thus can't happen.
This leaves only the possibility that f' <= f. Any moving clock
appears to run slow at the moment its motion is transverse to you
(perpendicular to the line between you and the moving clock.)

Is that consistent with your theory? Do you agree that, regardless of
which object you park yourself on, the observed rate of time passage
in any object moving with respect to you is less than yours _if_ we
subtract out the common Doppler effect due to light having a
propagation velocity (or, equivalently, choose the time the Doppler
effect is zero to do the measurement)?

If you want to talk about IRT you should read and understand IRT. In IRT the
quantity Fab is measured and if Fab is not constant a mean value is used in
the equation. In the case of the transverse doppler the mean value is at the
point where the source is directly over the observer.

Ken Seto
Back to top
Randy Poe
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:43 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

tomgee wrote:
Quote:
We can't see the other side of the moon from here either,
so what? And the Stooge above said nothing about
telescopes - you just added that in to show us you are
still misinterpreting what you read.

When astronomers say they haven't seen objects corresponding
to this mass, what is it you think that astronomers use to see things?

I'm curious. What else do you think that the astronomers would
use to see matter in the universe, other than telescopes?

You are aware that the word "telescope" is used for X-ray,
gamma-ray, UV and IR instruments, right?

- Randy
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:49 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

Randy Poe wrote:
Quote:
tomgee wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
tomgee wrote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:

The
whole idea behind dark matter is that it is massive,
and it attracts other objects via gravity. That is the
definition of "dark matter". No one is assuming that
dark matter is massless, other than you. That is
the point I have been repeatedly trying to make. Nobody
thinks that dark matter has zero or negative mass. It
is in fact defined to have positive mass.

You're making up facts, now, aren't you? If not, show us
that fact you claim exists where DM is defined to have
+mass.

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

Wiki-wiki? You're using wiki-wiki the editable-by-anyone online
website for unsupported opinions?

As the first of several links. Did you miss the others?

Even now that Encarta is free
online? What kind of simpleton would prefer to use a source that
he does not have to use and that any fool can edit and say
whatever he wants to in it?

Did you miss the others, the ones from professional astronomers'
websites?

If you read them, did you see any discrepancy between the Wiki
article and the astronomers' articles?

I'm just giving you back the grief you gave me when I first began

telling you I use Encarta as a resource. As a matter of fact, I do
not prefer one over any other, because I don't go by names of
authors or scientists, but of the content in review. I criticize the
work of AE and of Encarta without blinking an eye because they
make errors just like me and you.

You don't like the grief? Good, neither did I. Did you learn not
to do that anymore? Time will tell, but I seriously that you did.
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:50 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

Randy Poe wrote:
Quote:
tomgee wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
tomgee wrote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:

The
whole idea behind dark matter is that it is massive,
and it attracts other objects via gravity. That is the
definition of "dark matter". No one is assuming that
dark matter is massless, other than you. That is
the point I have been repeatedly trying to make. Nobody
thinks that dark matter has zero or negative mass. It
is in fact defined to have positive mass.

You're making up facts, now, aren't you? If not, show us
that fact you claim exists where DM is defined to have
+mass.

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

Wiki-wiki? You're using wiki-wiki the editable-by-anyone online
website for unsupported opinions?

As the first of several links. Did you miss the others?

Even now that Encarta is free
online? What kind of simpleton would prefer to use a source that
he does not have to use and that any fool can edit and say
whatever he wants to in it?

Did you miss the others, the ones from professional astronomers'
websites?

If you read them, did you see any discrepancy between the Wiki
article and the astronomers' articles?

I'm just giving you back the grief you gave me when I first began

telling you I use Encarta as a resource. As a matter of fact, I do
not prefer one over any other, because I don't go by names of
authors or scientists, but of the content in review. I criticize the
work of AE and of Encarta without blinking an eye because they
make errors just like me and you.

You don't like the grief? Good, neither did I. Did you learn not
to do that anymore? Time will tell, but I seriously doubt that you
did.
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:18 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

Randy Poe wrote:
Quote:
tomgee wrote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:

The
whole idea behind dark matter is that it is massive,
and it attracts other objects via gravity. That is the
definition of "dark matter". No one is assuming that
dark matter is massless, other than you. That is
the point I have been repeatedly trying to make. Nobody
thinks that dark matter has zero or negative mass. It
is in fact defined to have positive mass.

You're making up facts, now, aren't you? If not, show us
that fact you claim exists where DM is defined to have
+mass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
"In cosmology, dark matter refers to matter particles, of unknown
composition, that do not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic
radiation (light) to be detected directly,"
"The dark matter component has vastly more mass than the
"visible" component of the universe"

Nothing in there about +mass.

Nobody is saying it doesn't reflect any light. Merely that it doesn't
reflect enough light to be seen by our telescopes.

I think you're wrong about that, and those who think the same

are wrong too, IMO. You have to learn to write like a physicist
if you're going to argue like one. The author did not say what
you claim he said. He left out telescopes, leaving his statement
ambiguous enough to be able to escape from it if he has to.
Quote:

We can't see any brown dwarfs either.

So what? We don't see the other side of the moon either,

unless we go there. You would see a brown dwarf if you
came close enough, but DM is all around us, and still no
one can see it.
Quote:

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/dm.html
"When such velocity measurements are done on large scales, it turns out
that the amount of inferred mass is much more than can be explained by
the luminous stuff. Hence we infer that there is dark matter in the
Universe."

Nothing in there about +mass either.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/darkmatter.html
"On smaller scales such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies, dynamical
estimates of the mass based on rotation curves or velocity dispersions
of galaxies indicate that 90% (not 99%) of the total mass is not seen
("sub-luminous").

That's incorrect, isn't it? The total real mass is about 10

percent of the closure density, and the DM mass is more
like 23-25 percent, and if we add the energy content of
such mass, the total is raised to 90-99 percent, depending
on which article one reads.
Quote:

This implies that the mass density of the Universe is
10% of the closure density. In this case, the sub-luminous mass could
be normal (baryonic) and be locked up in stellar remnants (white
dwarfs, neutron stars, black holes) or just in very dim stars called
"Brown Dwarfs"."

Nothing in there about +mass, either.


Note that it says it _could be_, and not that it is. You repeat
that as if it were a fact and not just a guess.
Quote:

Plenty more stuff out there. Search for "dark matter" and pull up
any article on an EDU site, written by an astronomer. You will find
the same basic statements: that something like 90% of the MASS
of the universe is thought to be dark, that "dark matter" is the name
given to this MASS we can't see.

Nothing in there about +mass, either. I don't disagree with

anything in there either, for that matter.
Quote:

Note the list of candidates at the end of that last quote: white
dwarfs, neutron stars, black holes, brown dwarfs.

You note that "candidates" does not mean incumbents, yet

you talk as if they are not just possible explanations for DM,
but as if they are in fact accepted explanations for DM.
Quote:

Then show us how we can see through matter
that has +mass and +energy.

Who says we can see through it? Where are you getting this requirement
from?

From the recent article reporting that some mapping of DM
has been achieved. Find it and read it.

Are you thinking that if it was opaque, we'd see a dark place in
the sky? The stuff we can see has gaps between it, you know. Look
at a picture of stars. Points of light, separated by black.

But you cannot see through those points of light, can you?

Therefore, they are not the same as DM.
Back to top
stephen@nomail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 681

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:54 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:
Randy Poe wrote:
tomgee wrote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:

The
whole idea behind dark matter is that it is massive,
and it attracts other objects via gravity. That is the
definition of "dark matter". No one is assuming that
dark matter is massless, other than you. That is
the point I have been repeatedly trying to make. Nobody
thinks that dark matter has zero or negative mass. It
is in fact defined to have positive mass.

You're making up facts, now, aren't you? If not, show us
that fact you claim exists where DM is defined to have
+mass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
"In cosmology, dark matter refers to matter particles, of unknown
composition, that do not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic
radiation (light) to be detected directly,"
"The dark matter component has vastly more mass than the
"visible" component of the universe"

Nothing in there about +mass.

Do you honestly believe that a negative mass can be more than
a positive mass? The visible component of the Universe
has a positive mass. The dark matter component has more
mass than the visible component. A negative number cannot
be larger than a positive number. What do you think 'more'
means?

Stephen
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:22 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

stephen@nomail.com wrote:
Quote:
In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:

Randy Poe wrote:
tomgee wrote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:

The
whole idea behind dark matter is that it is massive,
and it attracts other objects via gravity. That is the
definition of "dark matter". No one is assuming that
dark matter is massless, other than you. That is
the point I have been repeatedly trying to make. Nobody
thinks that dark matter has zero or negative mass. It
is in fact defined to have positive mass.

You're making up facts, now, aren't you? If not, show us
that fact you claim exists where DM is defined to have
+mass.

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

Wiki-wiki? You're using wiki-wiki the editable-by-anyone online
website for unsupported opinions? Even now that Encarta is free
online? What kind of simpleton would prefer to use a source that
he does not have to use and that any fool can edit and say
whatever he wants to in it?

Two things. First, Encarta is not free online. Parts of it are,
but if you want to see all the articles, you have to pay for
them. For example, one article you have to pay to see is
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579459/Dark_Matter.html
So either you are misinformed, or you lied about the Encarta being
free. Second, according to you "Encarta leaves out a few important facts"
and "throws in a some opinions as facts." So why should anyone
believe Encarta? You apparently do not. So why recommend an
inaccurate source of information for which you have to pay?

No one should believe Encarta, nor any other reference work,

without comparison to what others say about the subject. You
believed one source that implied DM was not invisible, it is
just too dim for us to see it. Another shows DM is apparently
everywhere RM is not, so it is not a question of dimness but
of invisibility. Believe whichever one you want, but the latter
makes more sense to me, even if Encarta or any other source
said otherwise.

For you to depend on the truth coming from others is a gamble
everytime. You can only believe that they hold certain opinions
and that those can differ based on the capacity of their owners
to better analyze that from which they formed their opinions. I
think that differing opinions about any issue or topic shows that
both cannot be correct, usually, so one of them is probably
wrong and hopefully the other is correct. They could both be
wrong, of course.

When opinions seem to agree, we can be content to accept
them as true unless and until we learn or come to think of
one that differs. We can seek opinions from others, but in
many cases, theirs are just copied or learned from others
without objective analysis of a valid kind. It is therefore up to
us as individuals to try to sort the real and whole truth from
those differing opinions. To do otherwise puts us in danger
of believing in or accepting wrong opinions, because, after
all, a reference is support for an opinion, but it is often just
another opinion.
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:53 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

stephen@nomail.com wrote:
Quote:
In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:

Randy Poe wrote:
tomgee wrote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:

The
whole idea behind dark matter is that it is massive,
and it attracts other objects via gravity. That is the
definition of "dark matter". No one is assuming that
dark matter is massless, other than you. That is
the point I have been repeatedly trying to make. Nobody
thinks that dark matter has zero or negative mass. It
is in fact defined to have positive mass.

You're making up facts, now, aren't you? If not, show us
that fact you claim exists where DM is defined to have
+mass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
"In cosmology, dark matter refers to matter particles, of unknown
composition, that do not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic
radiation (light) to be detected directly,"
"The dark matter component has vastly more mass than the
"visible" component of the universe"

Nothing in there about +mass.

Do you honestly believe that a negative mass can be more than
a positive mass?

Why not?

The visible component of the Universe
has a positive mass.

Yes, that's what I said, precisely.

The dark matter component has more
mass than the visible component. A negative number cannot
be larger than a positive number. What do you think 'more'
means?

Obviously, you miscomprehended what you read. By

"component", the article refers to the total amount of
all the DM versus all the RM. He is not talking about
individual particles of matter. He should have said,
"The total amount dark matter mass is more than that
of the +mass." You have also misunderstood what
Dirac meant by "negative mass".

To him, an electron goes into an extraordinary state
when it loses energy to a level below its ground state.
At that point, the electron has lost its +mass and now
has mass less than zero, which Dirac called negative
mass, as compared to mass that has positive mass.
AFAIK, he made no reference to the amount of mass
involved, nor to any state of charge.

Since it involves the total loss of energy, the mass
becomes invisible. That is because for objects to be
visible to us, they must have energy. To have energy,
they must have temperature, and for that, they must
have +mass, according to E=mc^2 and the Principle
of the Conservation of Mass and Energy. Those are
the objects we can see. The DM is the negative mass
matter Dirac refers to and which I propose is the DM
of today that is invisible to us.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 13 of 15 [215 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Fri Apr 11, 2014 10:58 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts For the Einstein worshipers and skeptics 3ality Relativity 3 Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:23 pm
No new posts Undestanding SR - examination time. Nicolaas Vroom Relativity 14 Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:00 pm
No new posts WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN? Pentcho Valev Relativity 7 Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:24 am
No new posts Space-time and time dilation Henry Haapalainen Relativity 40 Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:58 pm
No new posts Clock Properties dseppala@austin.rr.com Relativity 11 Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:24 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.2134s ][ Queries: 16 (0.1566s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]