|
Home > Archive > Yoga > March 2006 > Our universe is 96% dark matter
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Our universe is 96% dark matter
|
|
| Paul H 2006-02-25, 9:32 pm |
| I watched a fascinating program on BBC2 last night. I was about the fact
that scientists can only find 4% of the stuff that the universe is made up
of.
The way it was explained (or I understood it) was that when they calculate
the mass of a star, the figure they arrive at means that the star should
fall apart because it does not have enough mass, therefor gravity, to hold
itself together as it rotates. It should fly apart. This also applies to
galaxies and...er.. other cosmic stuff.
So they had a 96% deficit in what they believe was the mass of cosmic
objects. So they came to the conclusion that the 96% is made up of a
combination of "dark matter" and "dark energy", no one really knows what
these two things are and they can not prove they exist other than in
computer models. They have set up equipment in disused (quiet) mines to try
a catch a glimpse of this dark matter passing through the earth. One lab has
spent 16 years looking for traces of it..nothing.
Are they trying to detect Prana? Or even God? One scientist even suggested
this, or at least implied that the dark matter theory is similar to
religious belief.
They other idea that tries to account for this 96%, is that Newton's theory
of gravity needs adjusting, i.e. gravity is not constant, it varies
according to mass or size or something.
Anyway, it was all very interesting and quite uplifting to think that our
scientists are so utterly clueless about how everything is constructed and
held together. I was under the impression that atoms and other tiny
(*tangible*) stuff made up the universe, but the exponents of dark matter
say it is something completely different, immeasurable and unknown.
Paul
| |
| Michael Pardee 2006-02-25, 9:32 pm |
| "Paul H" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:IGZGf.38987$Rw6.28537@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
>I watched a fascinating program on BBC2 last night. I was about the fact
>that scientists can only find 4% of the stuff that the universe is made up
>of.
>
> The way it was explained (or I understood it) was that when they calculate
> the mass of a star, the figure they arrive at means that the star should
> fall apart because it does not have enough mass, therefor gravity, to hold
> itself together as it rotates. It should fly apart. This also applies to
> galaxies and...er.. other cosmic stuff.
>
> So they had a 96% deficit in what they believe was the mass of cosmic
> objects. So they came to the conclusion that the 96% is made up of a
> combination of "dark matter" and "dark energy", no one really knows what
> these two things are and they can not prove they exist other than in
> computer models. They have set up equipment in disused (quiet) mines to
> try a catch a glimpse of this dark matter passing through the earth. One
> lab has spent 16 years looking for traces of it..nothing.
>
> Are they trying to detect Prana? Or even God? One scientist even suggested
> this, or at least implied that the dark matter theory is similar to
> religious belief.
>
> They other idea that tries to account for this 96%, is that Newton's
> theory of gravity needs adjusting, i.e. gravity is not constant, it varies
> according to mass or size or something.
>
> Anyway, it was all very interesting and quite uplifting to think that our
> scientists are so utterly clueless about how everything is constructed and
> held together. I was under the impression that atoms and other tiny
> (*tangible*) stuff made up the universe, but the exponents of dark matter
> say it is something completely different, immeasurable and unknown.
>
> Paul
>
I am even more impressed that within the last century physicists have made
great progress toward demonstrating that existence as we know it is
impossible. Einstein worked on a Grand Unification Theory that would unite
the known forces but never was able to reconcile them. He also never
accepted quantum theory, which presents physicists with the greatest
problem. We have tremendous confirmations of relativistic physics and
quantum physics, but it seems the two can't coexist - mathematical
representations that try to reconcile the two are plagued by divisions by
zero.
String theory, which has no experimental support, offers to reduce the
number of dimensions required for existence from 22 (21 plus time) to 10 (9
plus time). It employs Grassman number systems, which also are not real,
only internally consistent. I don't get a warm fuzzy feeling about this.
Yet every morning we wake up and put our feet on the floor and blink our
eyes against the sunshine. How very odd.
Mike
| |
|
| On 2006-02-10 17:12:55 -0800, "Michael Pardee"
<michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> said:
> "Paul H" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:IGZGf.38987$Rw6.28537@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
> I am even more impressed that within the last century physicists have
> made great progress toward demonstrating that existence as we know it
> is impossible. Einstein worked on a Grand Unification Theory that would
> unite the known forces but never was able to reconcile them. He also
> never accepted quantum theory, which presents physicists with the
> greatest problem. We have tremendous confirmations of relativistic
> physics and quantum physics, but it seems the two can't coexist -
> mathematical representations that try to reconcile the two are plagued
> by divisions by zero.
>
> String theory, which has no experimental support, offers to reduce the
> number of dimensions required for existence from 22 (21 plus time) to
> 10 (9 plus time). It employs Grassman number systems, which also are
> not real, only internally consistent. I don't get a warm fuzzy feeling
> about this.
>
> Yet every morning we wake up and put our feet on the floor and blink
> our eyes against the sunshine. How very odd.
>
> Mike
Quantum Mechanics, relativity, and the standard model of particle
physics are young. With time these mathematical models become better
at predicting and describing the physical universe.
I do not confuse the accuracy of this model of the physical universe
with the infinite joy and wonder derived from direct experience of the
cosmos.
--
~Stu
| |
| LawsonE 2006-03-22, 4:05 pm |
|
"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
news:oYidnes04-A0pHDeRVn-uQ@sedona.net...
> "Paul H" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:IGZGf.38987$Rw6.28537@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
> I am even more impressed that within the last century physicists have made
> great progress toward demonstrating that existence as we know it is
> impossible. Einstein worked on a Grand Unification Theory that would unite
> the known forces but never was able to reconcile them. He also never
> accepted quantum theory, which presents physicists with the greatest
> problem. We have tremendous confirmations of relativistic physics and
> quantum physics, but it seems the two can't coexist - mathematical
> representations that try to reconcile the two are plagued by divisions by
> zero.
>
> String theory, which has no experimental support, offers to reduce the
> number of dimensions required for existence from 22 (21 plus time) to 10
> (9 plus time). It employs Grassman number systems, which also are not
> real, only internally consistent. I don't get a warm fuzzy feeling about
> this.
>
> Yet every morning we wake up and put our feet on the floor and blink our
> eyes against the sunshine. How very odd.
>
20 years ago or so, a young physicist named John Hagelin visited TM founder
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (MMY) and discussed with him what a Western Theory of
Everything (TOE) had to be like in order to be compatible with the Vedic
tradition. Upon returning home, Hagelin sorted through competing unified
field theories and decided that something called Flipped SU(5) was the the
theory most easily modifed to fit in with MMY's interpretation of the Vedic
literature. After a bit of tweaking, Hagelin discovered that the
Vedic-adjusted version of Flipped SU(5) was actually a more robust theory
from a Western perspective than the non-modified theory.
He faxed his revisions to his old friend John Ellis of CERN with a note
attached: "isn't this the sweetest little theory you've ever seen?"
Ellis read through Hagelin's notes, decided that there was merit to what
Hagelin had done, and contacted the original author of Flipped SU(5). The
three collaborated, sometimes with several other physicists, on many many
papers on the subject (so many that they were (and are STILL) called a
"paper mill" by fellow physicists).
The revised version of Flipped SU(5) has been one of the more studied
versions of string theory ever since that first fax 20+ years ago.
One of the papers by Hagelin and company ranks 27th of all time most-cited
astrophysics papers.
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/librar...trophys.2.shtml
The complete citations list for hagelin follows:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires...T=WWW&SEQUENCE=
| |
|
| |
|
|