Dark matter?

[baltoro]

I think most cosmologists think the Big Bang theory is inadequate too, but, it explains alot.
Frankly, I think we have just identified the point where all the unknowns converge with an arbitrary timeline.
The event (the Singularity), is absurd, though,...in that it seems to violate all the known laws of physics.
We have no reason to believe that all the matter in the known Universe could be compressed into the state the precedes the Big Bang.
...Except that the mathematics indicate the possibility is inevitable,...

Of course,...you've got to keep in mind the well-known fact that: I'M WRONG ABOUT ALMOST EVERYTHING !!!

[dedndave]

some answers, we may never have - and this may be one of those
i am good with that   :P

thing is - maybe the gravitational effects of mass from adjacent universes is tugging on our pant-legs   :U

[baltoro]

DAVE !!!
Why do I get the distinct impression that you've been there and back ???

[dedndave]

lol
Greatful Dead comes to mind....

"what a long, strange trip it's been"   :boohoo:

(and the weed was excellent!!!)   :bdg

[Farabi]

O I C so it was reffereing to a graviti not a universe. I guess I make mista then.

[Farabi]

Talking about the universe, I always sure that it was start from a gas. And then a particle suddenly move fast, really fast, so if it hit our eyes, our brain will interpret is as a light, about afew 400 Thz the physic says, and then it is hiting each others, so there are bright light on the universe. And then, the proton and neutron I dont know how is formed and the electron make an orbit on it. Look at the moon, it was at least a carbon, it was very hard, so do maybe, mars, except jupiter, it still a gas they said. But the strange thing is the earth. It had a lot of waters, an hidrogen and a oxygen, which only had one and two electron/s orbit on it. Weird eh?

[FORTRANS]

truthfully, we don't understand gravity on any level - lol
my favorite physics "problem"
Newton helped a lot by deriving some formulas to describe [its] behaviour
however, they do not explain the true nature of [its] existance
very much a piece of the "unified theory" puzzle

Hi,

   Sorry for the edits, incorrect apostrophes bug me.

   In one sense the General Therory of Relativity explains the
existence of gravity.  Mass causes a distortion in space-time.
Of course then we (you?, I?) have to explain mass, and off
to the Higgs particle/field postulates.  Fun?

Cheers,

Steve

[dedndave]

i put those apostrifies in there just for you, Steve   :bg

i hold that the terms "mass" and "gravity" are the same thing
we use different words because our tiny little minds need to put things in context
...a fact that illustrates our lack of understanding of a concept

to take it one step further, "matter"/"mass"/"gravity" may be viewed as a state of energy
much like we view solid, liquid, or gas as states of matter

[FORTRANS]

Hi Dave,

i put those apostrifies in there just for you, Steve

   You're too good.  <g>

i hold that the terms "mass" and "gravity" are the same thing

   Um, no.  Mass implies more than gravity.  Inertia.  Filling of
space.  Physical characteristics, except for some variations of
dark matter, such as color and texture.  Gravity tends to imply
mass.  Whereas mass may not imply significant gravity.  Nit.
(Ducks.)

to take it one step further, "matter"/"mass"/"gravity" may be viewed as a state of energy
much like we view solid, liquid, or gas as states of matter

    Reminds one of the Special Therory of Relativity.  One wonders
how the established physicists felt about things before and after
1905.  An invariant speed of light and matter and energy being
linked must have been somewhat resented.  Energy and matter
don't look much alike to a lay person.  The speed of light being
the same regardless of the movement of the viewer seems to
be counter intuitive to a naive logic.

Oh well,

Steve N.

[dedndave]

Whereas mass may not imply significant gravity.

not too sure about that one   :bg
we define mass by the effect or "pull" it has on another body
...sounds like gravity, to me

[baltoro]

I've been reading up on Gravity, so that when I make nebulous statements, I won't sound like a complete idiot.
If you review the history of the theoretical development of Newton's version of gravity, you will notice that he developed the mathematical basis of the theory to fit observations of planetary orbital configurations known at the time (1686). This was such a major breakthrough, that it dominated all thought until Einstein published his Theory of General Relativity in 1905. "In 1915, Einstein published a set of differential equations known as the Einstein field equations. Einstein's general relativity depicted the universe as a geometric system of three spatial and one time dimensions."
"When physicists attempt to apply quantum field theory to the gravitational field, things get very messy. In mathematical terms, the physical quantities involve diverge, or result in infinity. Gravitational fields under general relativity require an infinite number of correction, or "renormalization," constants to adapt them into solvable equations. "

My current crackpot theory,...is that, we've been seduced by the mathematics (because it explains our current understanding accurately).
And,...I enthusiastically subscribe to the Dave Phenomena (lots of stuff we don't know): Calculus will prove to be inadequate in describing Gravity in all it's glory.
Intergalactic space travelers know this. Which explains why Interstellar spaceships don't actually travel at relativistic speeds.
...Otherwise,...there would be thousands of them parked out around Saturn,...

[daydreamer]

dark matter and dark energy,next theory they will come up to probably will talk of dark force and SithLords  :bdg
who could have known, George Lucas was so close to the truth?

[MichaelW]

Whereas mass may not imply significant gravity.

not too sure about that one   :bg
we define mass by the effect or "pull" it has on another body
...sounds like gravity, to me

That "pull" is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies.

Inertia depends only on the mass of a body, so I see it as the defining property of mass.

[baltoro]

What we really need is a MASM Forum community Project to: Redefine Post-Newtonian Gravity, and, maybe even, Minkowski Spacetime.
It'll take light-years,...
Required reading: Experimental Tests of General Relativity
...And, this will probably inspire a rapprochement with our extraterrestrial neighbors, who undoubtedly think we're all a bunch of infidels,...

[FORTRANS]

Hi,

   Nice point Michael.  Anyway I put the word significant in for a
reason.  Two examples for your consideration.

   One is the electrons in a wire.  You should agree that electrons
have mass.  But when was the last time you needed to calculate
the gravitation they create?  I tend to ignore that effect.

   Another from the world of science fiction and calculus.  You are
an advanced race and you create a hollow world (a spherical shell).
Integrate the gravitational effects of the matter in the shell of that
world.  If you are on the outside there is a gravitational field pulling
you towards the center of mass.  Rather normal.  But if you are
on the inside, should you be pulled to the center of mass?  Or
should you be pulled towards the shell so you could walk around
on it?  It, of course, turns out to be neither.  You would be
weightless.  So while you are being affected by the gravitational
field, it is uniform, and the effect is nil.  I seem to remember
not getting the right result when I first tried solving it.

   baltoro, the simpler Special Theory of Relativity was in 1905.
Speed of light, observations depending on the viewr's frame of
reference, increased mass and slowing of time as you approach
the speed of light, and E = MC**2 kind of things.  The General
Theory of Relativity first came out in 1916.  It is a more complex
theory... Gravitation, frame dragging, gravity affecting light, and
gravity slowing time kind of things.

   Infidels?  You think?

   Anyway, I think that dead horse has been flogged enough.

Cheers,

Steve N.

Edit: deleted iffy item.
SRN