If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(PhysOrg.com)   Repulsive gravity, previously thought by physicists to only emanate from your mom, may be key to understanding dark matter   (physorg.com) divider line 55
    More: Interesting, gravitational fields, dark matter, dark energy, virtual particles, Antiparticle, cosmological constants, neutrinos, energy density  
•       •       •

2608 clicks; posted to Geek » on 01 Feb 2012 at 8:49 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



55 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-01 05:49:31 PM
Nice, one of the better "Yo' mamma" jokes in a while.
 
2012-02-01 06:08:44 PM
yo dark mater blows and sucks?
 
2012-02-01 06:25:56 PM
TheOther: yo dark mater blows and sucks?

That's why Dark Matter is better known as Mega Maid.
 
2012-02-01 07:26:33 PM
Wait a minute: I thought my mother was a whore. So now she's a REPULSIVE whore? Damn.
 
2012-02-01 09:02:45 PM
Anti-gravity is what makes my ears perk up. Is it possible?
 
2012-02-01 09:05:22 PM
I'm so old I remember when a guy back in the '80s propsed a fifth force that repelled and was basically laughed at. He even had some experimental evidence.

/if he's still alive I hope he sues
 
2012-02-01 09:10:50 PM
ENERGY not MATTER....

and it is not an alternative to dark energy, it is an explanation for dark energy.
 
2012-02-01 09:22:13 PM

whither_apophis: I'm so old I remember when a guy back in the '80s propsed a fifth force that repelled and was basically laughed at. He even had some experimental evidence.

/if he's still alive I hope he sues


If you could sue 'cause people laughed at you, I'd be rich.
 
2012-02-01 09:26:00 PM
"Additionally, this additional gravity suggests that we live in a cyclic Universe (with no Big Bang) "

This alone.

The Big Bang has always struck me as too Creationist. It's like it was thought up by people lacking the courage, or imagination, to consider anything that did not match up with the various creation myths, especially the Abrahamic ones.
 
2012-02-01 09:36:04 PM
Interesting read, but nowhere past the 'hey what if' hypothesis phase.
 
2012-02-01 09:53:35 PM

tomWright: "Additionally, this additional gravity suggests that we live in a cyclic Universe (with no Big Bang) "

This alone.

The Big Bang has always struck me as too Creationist. It's like it was thought up by people lacking the courage, or imagination, to consider anything that did not match up with the various creation myths, especially the Abrahamic ones.


wat
 
2012-02-01 09:56:23 PM
I think It's a great idea, but possibly not - and I'm not being indecisive.
 
2012-02-01 09:56:27 PM
It seems like far too many physicists and cosmologists have come to think about "dark matter" and "dark energy" as real things. They're not. They are nothing more than placeholders to fill in the gaps of relativity, names that we give to phenomena that cannot be explained by Einstein. Personally I believe that old Albert missed the mark by several degrees. That's not to say "Einstein was wrong!", but rather that he didn't get it completely right, and that's why we have these holes in relativity that we have to plug with all these iDark products.
 
2012-02-01 10:11:25 PM
Anti-gravity if you will?
 
2012-02-01 10:15:25 PM

lisarenee3505: It seems like far too many physicists and cosmologists have come to think about "dark matter" and "dark energy" as real things.


They are real things, for certain values of "real". There is something that has gravitational effects and we can only detect it through those effects- but detect it we do. Whatever this thing is, we call it dark matter.

The expansion of the universe is accelerating. Acceleration requires the application of force over time, which requires energy. Wherever this energy comes from, we call it dark energy.
 
2012-02-01 10:15:36 PM
That's a lot of big words
 
2012-02-01 10:21:04 PM

r1chard3: Anti-gravity if you will?


Your mom will.
 
2012-02-01 10:22:45 PM
That's so simple...how has it not been proposed before?
 
2012-02-01 10:29:10 PM

gaspode: Interesting read, but nowhere past the 'hey what if' hypothesis phase.


Did you miss the part where he has a formal theory and has used it to calculate things that agree with reality?

Or the fact that at least 2 groups are now trying to measure the gravitational force between matter and anti-matter?

Most people who might be interested in this became so back in June and read his preprint in Arxiv.
 
2012-02-01 10:31:04 PM

StrangeQ: That's so simple...how has it not been proposed before?


It has, but the real issue is there's no reason to think that matter and antimatter behave differently in regards to gravity. It's fallen into this, "Well, if they did, it would mean a whole bunch of equations work really well," trap. So, sorta like string theory.
 
2012-02-01 10:32:33 PM

tomWright: The Big Bang has always struck me as too Creationist. It's like it was thought up by people lacking the courage, or imagination, to consider anything that did not match up with the various creation myths, especially the Abrahamic ones.


www.drinkalot.com
 
2012-02-01 11:17:06 PM
So we might find the anti-graviton before we find the graviton?
 
2012-02-01 11:27:02 PM

tomWright: "Additionally, this additional gravity suggests that we live in a cyclic Universe (with no Big Bang) "

This alone.

The Big Bang has always struck me as too Creationist. It's like it was thought up by people lacking the courage, or imagination, to consider anything that did not match up with the various creation myths, especially the Abrahamic ones.


I've kinda figured the universe expands until it bumps into another expanding universe. Then, it rebounds and contracts until it crushes into a singularity and we have another big bang...

Kind like the bubbles on top of of a pot of water at a rolling boil.
 
2012-02-01 11:36:50 PM

tomWright: "Additionally, this additional gravity suggests that we live in a cyclic Universe (with no Big Bang) "

This alone.

The Big Bang has always struck me as too Creationist. It's like it was thought up by people lacking the courage, or imagination, to consider anything that did not match up with the various creation myths, especially the Abrahamic ones.


Thought up by someone like a Catholic Priest (new window)?
 
2012-02-01 11:39:45 PM

tomWright: The Big Bang has always struck me as too Creationist. It's like it was thought up by people lacking the courage, or imagination, to consider anything that did not match up with the various creation myths, especially the Abrahamic ones.


Uh, that was a big issue when it was first proposed, so you're not the first to think that.

Atheist scientists fought against it for exactly that same reason. So amusingly, we have a case in science history where atheists were the ones trying to prevent progress because of their beliefs.

And no, i don't have a internet link to every piece of information in my head, but you can find it if you care enough. It is a fact.
 
2012-02-01 11:46:59 PM
So...

Anti-as-in-opposite-of-gravity?

How about Levity?

/only wishes he came up with this...
 
2012-02-01 11:50:39 PM
And by progress i mean scientific advancement, which is really a series of corrected mistakes anyway. What we see as great achievements now will likely someday be proven wrong as science advances. It's just the way it goes.

Don't misinterpret that to mean i believe in the big-bang. I personally think the human brain is not advanced enough to understand some things yet, and the universe is one of them. We're like monkeys trying to understand a combustion engine, or radiowaves, or something.
 
2012-02-02 12:00:42 AM

J. Frank Parnell: And by progress i mean scientific advancement, which is really a series of corrected mistakes anyway. What we see as great achievements now will likely someday be proven wrong as science advances. It's just the way it goes.

Don't misinterpret that to mean i believe in the big-bang. I personally think the human brain is not advanced enough to understand some things yet, and the universe is one of them. We're like monkeys trying to understand a combustion engine, or radiowaves, or something.


That's great buddy. What good is an idea if we assume beforehand that it will someday be proven wrong?
And why bother trying to understand anything if we assert, up front, that it's futile?

Might as well just curl up and suck our thumbs.
 
2012-02-02 12:29:33 AM

kungfro: That's great buddy. What good is an idea if we assume beforehand that it will someday be proven wrong?
And why bother trying to understand anything if we assert, up front, that it's futile?

Might as well just curl up and suck our thumbs.


How do you eat an elephant? One spoonful at a time. It's all about babysteps, at least until we develop AI and hit the singularity. Hopefully the machines will look at us more as respected ancestors rather than rats in the kitchen.
 
2012-02-02 01:09:22 AM

t3knomanser: lisarenee3505: It seems like far too many physicists and cosmologists have come to think about "dark matter" and "dark energy" as real things.

They are real things, for certain values of "real". There is something that has gravitational effects and we can only detect it through those effects- but detect it we do. Whatever this thing is, we call it dark matter.

The expansion of the universe is accelerating. Acceleration requires the application of force over time, which requires energy. Wherever this energy comes from, we call it dark energy.


But that doesn't mean there is some substance we can point to and say 'that is the dark energy'. It may be that such things are an intrensic property of space, in which case, I cannot simply dig up a jar full of dark matter or energy for you.

If this gravitational effect comes from some misunderstood property of gravity rather than an ecternal sourve, there may indeed be no such thing as dark energy.
 
2012-02-02 01:11:30 AM
External source, I mean.

Sorry, don't know what happened there.
 
2012-02-02 01:34:15 AM
Some Dark Matter I'd like to explore.
www.hairstylesnew2012.tk

/Black holes
 
2012-02-02 03:21:10 AM

John Nash: So we might find the anti-graviton before we find the graviton?


northernarizonanews.com

www.nightmarepark.com
 
2012-02-02 04:06:49 AM

lisarenee3505: It seems like far too many physicists and cosmologists have come to think about "dark matter" and "dark energy" as real things. They're not. They are nothing more than placeholders to fill in the gaps of relativity, names that we give to phenomena that cannot be explained by Einstein. Personally I believe that old Albert missed the mark by several degrees. That's not to say "Einstein was wrong!", but rather that he didn't get it completely right, and that's why we have these holes in relativity that we have to plug with all these iDark products.


While there is some truth in that about Dark Energy, there is none about Dark Matter, which is a real, as yet unidentified, form of matter. There is now little question about this.
 
2012-02-02 04:30:29 AM

tomWright: "Additionally, this additional gravity suggests that we live in a cyclic Universe (with no Big Bang) "

This alone.

The Big Bang has always struck me as too Creationist. It's like it was thought up by people lacking the courage, or imagination, to consider anything that did not match up with the various creation myths, especially the Abrahamic ones.


"Yea, and from the Darkness came the Universe, which was spat out by the Cosmic Bluto, that he may imitate the likeness of a dermal pustule bursting, and so it was that all that is came forth from Him: that which is seen and that which is unseen, that which hath form and that which is formless, that which is made of potato and that which is... not made of potato."
 
2012-02-02 04:54:27 AM

J. Frank Parnell: tomWright: The Big Bang has always struck me as too Creationist. It's like it was thought up by people lacking the courage, or imagination, to consider anything that did not match up with the various creation myths, especially the Abrahamic ones.

Uh, that was a big issue when it was first proposed, so you're not the first to think that.

Atheist scientists fought against it for exactly that same reason. So amusingly, we have a case in science history where atheists were the ones trying to prevent progress because of their beliefs.

And no, i don't have a internet link to every piece of information in my head, but you can find it if you care enough. It is a fact.


How about YOU find the link and then come back to us. Until then

CITATION NEEDED
 
2012-02-02 05:08:25 AM
silly.

/try again
 
2012-02-02 05:10:42 AM
If you have a hypothesis for what dark energy could be then I'm all ears
If you have a hypothesis for dark matter involving a tweak to gravity I'm interested in how it explains (among other things) patterns of "clumped" dark matter around galaxies
If you have a hypothesis that suggests there was no Big Bang then you better be putting out a paradigm shifting paper. How do you explain the CMBR, for example?

I'm also confused as to how a cyclical universe wouldn't have a Big Bang or multiple bangs (and how he explains current observations that show the expansion of the universe is accelerating) . Gravity pulls the universe back together, but then it doesn't collapse to a singularity? It pauses and repels again?

It seems like a lot of "what ifs" that UNsolve a bunch of problems in order to answer some others.
 
2012-02-02 06:04:04 AM

gaspode: Dark Matter, which is a real, as yet unidentified, form of matter. There is now little question about this.


Dark matter seems to exist to help explain things but there has never been any direct hands on observations or manipulations of it. If the "dark matter effect" can be explained by the dipole effect in a gravitational field of spontaneous quantum generated particle-antiparticle pairs with negative gravity then it won't be hold in your hands real.
 
2012-02-02 06:54:00 AM

Baryogenesis: I'm also confused as to how a cyclical universe wouldn't have a Big Bang or multiple bangs


A cyclical universe is a series of episodes that might start with an extreme expansions that eventually winds up with an extreme contraction down to something that looks like a singularity big bang event, and this cycle repeats forever.

The current cosmological semi-consensus seems to favor a universe that started with a bang and will expand forever and never contract. However it includes terms such as dark matter and dark energy which are needed and somewhat observable, as fudge factors.

Any cosmological model will be suspect until there is a firm understanding of dark matter and dark energy. Dragan Hajdukovic, with his hypothesis of negative gravity, between anti-particles, gives a model where dark-matter is just an artifact.

Maybe the current hands on experiments to measure the gravity of anti-particles will confirm or refute his hypothesis - after all this is science.

However I don't understand enough of his theory to understand how it changes the universe from permanently expanding to episodically big banging.
 
2012-02-02 07:48:44 AM
Come on guys be honest.
They have no idea how it started or how it works.
The entire redshift theory is crap and does not match the data (uneven distribution of shift across the universe ect).

Barry Setterfield is being proven right more and more each day.
 
2012-02-02 07:54:33 AM

J. Frank Parnell: Uh, that was a big issue when it was first proposed, so you're not the first to think that.

Atheist scientists fought against it for exactly that same reason. So amusingly, we have a case in science history where atheists were the ones trying to prevent progress because of their beliefs.

And no, i don't have a internet link to every piece of information in my head, but you can find it if you care enough. It is a fact.



Please allow me: here (new window). The very name "Big Bang" was coined by atheist astronomer Fred Hoyle as a derisive slur to a theory he viewed as trying to cram religion into science.
 
2012-02-02 08:06:14 AM
According to the big bang, when the universe was tiny and super hot its particles behaved strangely and against the known laws of physics.
I wonder if dark matter is some kind of material that is, relatively, still too hot or compressed by the dimensions of the current universe to behave like normal stuff. That it would change as the expansion continues to eventually reverse everything back into a collapse.

Blaming the effect on anti-matter does make things simpler. That way you get an anti-gravity effect while still lensing light and holding galaxies of positive or negative material together.

The more news worthy bit here is that such a thing as "anti-gravity" is a real effect.
 
2012-02-02 08:11:00 AM

HairBolus: gaspode: Dark Matter, which is a real, as yet unidentified, form of matter. There is now little question about this.

Dark matter seems to exist to help explain things but there has never been any direct hands on observations or manipulations of it. If the "dark matter effect" can be explained by the dipole effect in a gravitational field of spontaneous quantum generated particle-antiparticle pairs with negative gravity then it won't be hold in your hands real.



There are many types of material that we have not had direct hands on observations or manipulations of (say, neutronium for example). Dark matter is the object of "look, there it is!" astronomical observations that are not explained by non-material "effects" like "the dipole effect in a gravitational field of spontaneous quantum generated particle-antiparticle pairs with negative gravity" --

Explanations of dark matter that use something other than some form of weakly interacting material only work (when they work at all) by ignoring several of the 8 or so lines of evidence for dark matter's existence.
 
2012-02-02 08:19:43 AM
Isn't Dark Matter just the hypothetical amount of undetected matter necessary for Big Bang cosmology to fit the observed behaviour of deep space?

I had the passing thought that maybe gravity isn't just resisting expansion, it's driving it. I mean, in an open universe you need something pulling everything out, which can't overcome gravity too easily. In a closed universe you'd get a kind of hydrostatic (might be the wrong word there, but like how tentacles move) effect of gravity pulling 'outwards'.
 
2012-02-02 08:42:08 AM

J. Frank Parnell: And by progress i mean scientific advancement, which is really a series of corrected mistakes anyway. What we see as great achievements now will likely someday be proven wrong as science advances. It's just the way it goes.

Don't misinterpret that to mean i believe in the big-bang. I personally think the human brain is not advanced enough to understand some things yet, and the universe is one of them. We're like monkeys trying to understand a combustion engine, or radiowaves, or something.


It's cute how you think that you understand science in any way, shape, or form.
 
2012-02-02 08:56:36 AM

lisarenee3505: It seems like far too many physicists and cosmologists have come to think about "dark matter" and "dark energy" as real things.


But do they really? I doubt it. It seems to me more like a "thing" which seems to have x, y, & z properties. They just needed a name for this "thing" which keeps messing with their model. I'd guess it's more a product of science writers than scientists.
 
2012-02-02 09:35:44 AM

CanuckAmok: So...

Anti-as-in-opposite-of-gravity?

How about Levity?

/only wishes he came up with this...


The opposite of gravity, that is, a force which accelerates objects away from it, is called apergy (new window).
 
2012-02-02 09:56:24 AM
A recent episode of Nova had a science guy who did some calculations, and figured out that when matter gets dense enough, gravity switches to being repuslive. This explains the big bang and its relation to inflation theory, because it is a mathematically (according to him) sound explanation of why inflation took place and then stopped.

It also opens the possibility that the universe is just one of many bubbles in the vast nothing that exploded into a universe, and other universes exist outside of ours. If ours continued to expand, we might bump in to another universe, but assuming ours is cyclic that probably won't happen.

We can't travel to another universe, because we would have to travel faster than the universe is expanding. But if it is cyclical, what stops us from traveling toward the receding edge and hitting it? Again, we might not be close enough to another universe, but we might be outside our own universe.

/TMYK
 
2012-02-02 10:41:55 AM

GilRuiz1: The very name "Big Bang" was coined by atheist astronomer Fred Hoyle as a derisive slur to a theory he viewed as trying to cram religion into science.


From your link:

" It is popularly reported that Hoyle intended this to be pejorative, but the script from which he read aloud shows that he intended the expression to help his listeners.[9] Hoyle explicitly denied that he was being insulting and said it was just a striking image meant to emphasize the difference between the two theories for radio listeners.[10] "
 
Displayed 50 of 55 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report