@BrianK

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/10/physics-nobel-goes-to-the-dark-side-of-the-universe.ars
Quote:

A constant repulsion could have been masked by gravitational attraction while the Universe was younger and more dense. Now that it's sufficiently diffuse, the repulsive force is able to dominate, initiating a new inflation.

Gee...I wonder what [real] force has a repulsive component?

@Lou

My God, I see the light! Its all due to the Weak Nuclear Force!

Magnetism doesn't exist, its all the Weak Force! Its just called 'weak' because of a massive conspiracy to discredit it!


Heh, there's more truth to my little joke than at first appears the case. From a certain point of view (and at sufficient energy levels...), there really isn't any such thing as EM - it was unified with the Weak force in 1968, current theory describes a single 'electro-weak' interaction with the same equations describing both forces accurately.

Those equations, by the way, don't accurately predict any cosmic-scale activity, nor are they used to describe the motion of uncharged objects... Sorry!

Last edited by T-J on 04-Oct-2011 at 11:30 PM.
Last edited by T-J on 04-Oct-2011 at 11:28 PM.

@T-J

Quote:

T-J wrote: @Lou My God, I see the light! Its all due to the Weak Nuclear Force! Magnetism doesn't exist, its all the Weak Force! Its just called 'weak' because of a massive conspiracy to discredit it!

Or you could say there is no weak force, it's all magnetism...

Quote:

Heh, there's more truth to my little joke than at first appears the case. From a certain point of view (and at sufficient energy levels...), there really isn't any such thing as EM - it was unified with the Weak force in 1968, current theory describes a single 'electro-weak' interaction with the same equations describing both forces accurately. Those equations, by the way, don't accurately predict any cosmic-scale activity, nor are they used to describe the motion of uncharged objects... Sorry!

Neutrons have a magnetic moment and they spin opposite of protons. That alone would cause them to attract in a manner that is now considered strong force. They may not have the formulas yet but that's my take on it...

@Lou

Quote:

Or you could say there is no weak force, it's all magnetism...

Amazingly enough, I wasn't actually being serious. The EM and Weak Nuclear forces have been unified into a single electro-weak interaction at extremely high energy levels - this is not the same thing as saying that the weak force is the same as the magnetic force - its saying that at high energy levels they are described by the same equations.

Quote:

Neutrons have a magnetic moment and they spin opposite of protons. That alone would cause them to attract in a manner that is now considered strong force. They may not have the formulas yet but that's my take on it...

...No. Neutrons have a magnetic moment that is opposite to the anti-neutron. The proton has the opposite electric charge to the electron, not the neutron. Neutrons effectively have no net electric charge. Hence the name, really.

The attraction that holds neutrons together, indeed that sticks all quarks together into more familiar forms of matter, is the strong nuclear force. This is mediated by particles that we've detected in various different particle accellerator experiments, independently, called gluons. It is not in any way related to charge. Hence, it is not an electromagnetic force.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @BrianK http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/10/physics-nobel-goes-to-the-dark-side-of-the-universe.ars Quote: A constant repulsion could have been masked by gravitational attraction while the Universe was younger and more dense. Now that it's sufficiently diffuse, the repulsive force is able to dominate, initiating a new inflation. Gee...I wonder what [real] force has a repulsive component?

Notice the article said that constant repulsion 'could'. First, it's not certain it's a guess that people are working out. Also, note the masking was by GRAVITATIONAL attraction. Meaning there was more than 1 force at play. I think if you reread you will find this article itself does not demand your single force swag of the universe and can work with the fundamental forces as we've identified them.

Also, you need to explain your 'opposite spin' of neutron and proton more. Afterall, protons can spin in either direction. Supercolliders polarize the spin by exposing the protons to an external EM force to align the spins. Your statement reads as if all protons only spin in 1 direction, which would not true. Care to rephrase?

@Lou

Quote:

A constant repulsion could have been masked by gravitational attraction while the Universe was younger and more dense. Now that it's sufficiently diffuse, the repulsive force is able to dominate, initiating a new inflation.

Hmmm... Nice bit of quote mining, lets just look at he rest of the statement,
Quote:

Unfortunately, the best prospect for a constant source of energy, quantum vacuum fluctuations, doesn't provide enough of it—in fact, it's higher by a factor of 10^120

Does the term "orders of magnitude" ring any bells?

Sticking to the original statement "A constant repulsion could have been masked", you can see that I have highlighted the source of your difficulty.
Speculation does not equal Proof, or to put it another way

It's a Duck!

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: A constant repulsion could have been masked by gravitational attraction while the Universe was younger and more dense. Now that it's sufficiently diffuse, the repulsive force is able to dominate, initiating a new inflation. Hmmm... Nice bit of quote mining, lets just look at he rest of the statement, Quote: Unfortunately, the best prospect for a constant source of energy, quantum vacuum fluctuations, doesn't provide enough of it—in fact, it's higher by a factor of 10^120 Does the term "orders of magnitude" ring any bells? Sticking to the original statement "A constant repulsion could have been masked", you can see that I have highlighted the source of your difficulty. Speculation does not equal Proof, or to put it another way It's a Duck!

I like how the article basically doesn't have a clue and you then pretend it does only to attempt to tell me I don't have a clue. I told you from the beginning gravity is wrong. It has a 70%-99% margin for error based on this article. So they say gravity + X = right and that X is something they have yet to actually detect called dark energy and dark matter forgetting that they still haven't directly detected gravity.

Gravity's a duck alright, an ugly duckling...

@Lou

Quote:

I like how the article basically doesn't have a clue and you then pretend it does only to attempt to tell me I don't have a clue.

You don't have a clue about particle physics. You didn't know the difference between a proton and an antineutron.

Quote:

I told you from the beginning gravity is wrong. It has a 70%-99% margin for error based on this article. So they say gravity + X = right and that X is something they have yet to actually detect called dark energy and dark matter forgetting that they still haven't directly detected gravity.

Again, making a claim over and over again doesn't make it true. Proving it mathematically goes some way towards achieving that. If gravity is so wrong, you should be able to present a mathematic proof of that 'fact', solving the whole problem in one fell swoop.

Quote:

Gravity's a duck alright, an ugly duckling...

Didn't the ugly duckling turn out to be a beautiful swan? Good analogy, then.

@Lou
Quote:

I like how the article basically doesn't have a clue

The article admits that we do not have all of the answers, but that is a totally different situation than "not having a clue". To refer back to BrianK's comic book story, there are still some pieces missing, but we can still see that it is not a duck.
Another thing that nobody knows is the true value of π. It can be expessed at 1000 places, 10000 places, or even one million places, without reaching the exact value. That does not mean that nobody has a clue. (Except of course for Lou who knows it is 42)

Quote:

I told you from the beginning gravity is wrong.

Indeed you did, you also told us that Sitchin knew how to read ancient texts, that a selection of dodgy pictures proved that Nibiru was coming, that the comet Elenin was going to cause major worldwide disasters in September 2011, and that the Pyramids were built by aliens using blocks that were heavier than the finished product.

Since we are now back to the line that "Gravity does not exist, it's all EM" I assume that you have found some actual equations to prove your point, or were you hoping once again to be able to duck the issue.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@T-J

Quote:

T-J wrote: @Lou Proving it mathematically goes some way towards achieving that. If gravity is so wrong, you should be able to present a mathematic proof of that 'fact', solving the whole problem in one fell swoop.

Gravity(general relativity) has already been proven wrong by observing the distant stars. It's already been modified once (Newtonian)... Rather than continuing to fix what was a bad design from the beginning, they should spend money on a new approach and quit while they are behind.

Quote:

Quote: Gravity's a duck alright, an ugly duckling... Didn't the ugly duckling turn out to be a beautiful swan? Good analogy, then.

This ugly duckling is getting shot by hunters.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Since we are now back to the line that "Gravity does not exist, it's all EM" I assume that you have found some actual equations to prove your point, or were you hoping once again to be able to duck the issue.

If there were actual equations, do you think they'd still be wasting their time hacking on dark matter and dark energy onto general relativity?

I say the system is flawed, start developing a new one. You say "what they spoon-fed me is good enough."

@Lou

Quote:

Rather than continuing to fix what was a bad design from the beginning, they should spend money on a new approach and quit while they are behind.

Quote:

I say the system is flawed, start developing a new one.

So where do you think they should start from. Your ridiculous "It's all EM" fantasy?
Basically what you are saying is the equivalent of "Internal combustion engines are not as good as they could be, Unreliable and inefficient designs should be consigned to the scrapheap until we can get 1000mpg at 1000mph". And in the meantime, I suppose the lack of such cars is all part of a conspiracy by the oil companies.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Lou

Quote:

Gravity(general relativity) has already been proven wrong by observing the distant stars. It's already been modified once (Newtonian)... Rather than continuing to fix what was a bad design from the beginning, they should spend money on a new approach and quit while they are behind.

Scientists are constantly working on new theories of the universe. A quantum theory of gravity is one avenue being explored. Superstring theory is another. M-theory a third.

I honestly don't know where you get this false caricature of science as a dogmatic preaching of Einstein's theory from, because billions go into trying to knock it over each and every year. Note how the recent results from CERN that appear to show faster-than-light neutrinos have been put to the wider scientific community for confirmation, rather than hushed up as you would have us believe is routine.

You want to use electromagnetic theory, despite the fact that it fails completely as a unified field theory. Newton provides useful approximations, Einstein provides more accuracy. You provide gut instinct, which is about as much use in science or engineering as a random number generator.

Quote:

This ugly duckling is getting shot by hunters.

More violent metaphors. Interesting.

But that's not how science deals with old theories. Instead, it takes them off to one side and puts them in the Old Theories Retirement Home and visits them regularly.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Rather than continuing to fix what was a bad design from the beginning, they should spend money on a new approach and quit while they are behind. Quote: I say the system is flawed, start developing a new one. So where do you think they should start from. Your ridiculous "It's all EM" fantasy? Basically what you are saying is the equivalent of "Internal combustion engines are not as good as they could be, Unreliable and inefficient designs should be consigned to the scrapheap until we can get 1000mpg at 1000mph". And in the meantime, I suppose the lack of such cars is all part of a conspiracy by the oil companies.

No. A better analogy is that instead of driving a car with perfectly round wheels, they are hexagon shaped and the faster/farther you go the bumpier the ride. It's time to re-invent the wheel in this case.

@Lou

Quote:

No. A better analogy is that instead of driving a car with perfectly round wheels, they are hexagon shaped and the faster/farther you go the bumpier the ride. It's time to re-invent the wheel in this case.

A great analogy! As the scientists study they learn more and make a nonagon shape. The bumps still exist so with more research they move to a dodecagon. A bit less bumpy and soon the centagon proves even better. Eventually with infinitimatessamal mathematics they get to an infinite sided object and the sphere exists and the bumpy ride is gone.

If you haven't seen this You Tube Channel watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6o2bUPdxV0

It's called Minute Physics. It describes this sort of stuff in straight forward terms. This video is good it talks about the latest Nobel prizes in physics. Oh and it does note that perhaps it's all just wrong and, unlike Lou's claims, we're working on that idea too.

@BrianK

See, now this makes more sense:
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/10/astronomers-take-first-ever-image-of-turbulent-gas-between-the-stars.ars

Picture this stuff everywhere instead of 'dark matter' and look it carries EM, imagine that...

Quote:

A better picture of the ISM is important because it will help us better understand the overall motion of galaxies and formation of stars, which occurs in the (relatively) dense regions.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: If you haven't seen this You Tube Channel watch it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6o2bUPdxV0 It's called Minute Physics. It describes this sort of stuff in straight forward terms. This video is good it talks about the latest Nobel prizes in physics. Oh and it does note that perhaps it's all just wrong and, unlike Lou's claims, we're working on that idea too.

That video was completely useless. However it does expose the error that is 'gravity is the main force in the universe'.

@Lou

Quote:

Picture this stuff everywhere instead of 'dark matter' and look it carries EM, imagine that...

OK, but then how do you explain the results from the charged particle colliders? Of coruse, you don't. You think protons are held together with superglue.

But whatever, there's something else interesting here: Somebody's saying stuff you agree with, and lo! The big black cars haven't taken him away!

Perhaps your conspiracy theories aren't quite entirely correct?

@Lou

Quote:

That video was completely useless.

Wow. Well, you can give a man an explaination but you certainly can't make him think.

Quote:

However it does expose the error that is 'gravity is the main force in the universe'.

It does note that perhaps it's all wrong. Which I think you'll find the more scientific bent people here do agree with. They have asked you repeatively for evidence. Unfortunately what we get from you is conjectures that you're right and all of science is wrong. You never seem to understand what evidence means.