# Dark matter



## RJM Corbet

What exactly is 'Dark Matter'?


----------



## Nik

Exactly.

*Some* of it may be plain, ordinary hydrogen clouds and 'diffuse clusters' that we haven't noticed yet. There's a lot of 'hidden' mass showing up on the tail of the HR diagram as Red Dwarfs, Brown Dwarfs and super-jovians. Some Dark Matter may be rare on Earth and only show up at CERN. IIRC, there's a couple of teams hunting for wild cosmic particles and, cough, 'sparticles' down mines-- Hey, it worked for solar neutrinos...

One hypothesised type of Dark Matter is its own anti-particle-- Concentrate it, and an Annihilation reaction occurs. What effect this would have on stars' and super-jovians' evolution is a puzzle...

IIRC, there's a possible joker in that the supernova which blew the 'Local Bubble' the Sun's currently passing through may have swept away any arcane Dark Matter, too...
Local Bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Another possibility is that the universe is WYSIWYG, but gravity isn't quite Newtonian...


----------



## RJM Corbet

Thanks. That explains that. As in _not!_


----------



## Interference

My meagre understanding is that Dark Matter is an invention of science to explain why their sums are going wrong all the time.

A cynic might say that's how God got invented


----------



## Vertigo

I belive that is basically correct Int. Physicists do not really know what dark matter is. The problem as I understand it is that the current observable behaviour of the universe (rate and acceleration of expansion) simply doesn't fit with the obervable mass of the universe. Hence the belief that there is a load of other matter out there that we have not yet been able to detect. They now have theories that will fit the current observation if they include dark matter. So now, with a prediction of dark matter, they must find some 

As I understand it, if they ever manage to detect the Higgs Boson particle at CERN their next target is going to be dark matter.

And then there's dark energy...


----------



## RJM Corbet

They're saying that the gravity effect of Dark Matter seems to be coming from one of those outside dimensions that we can neither observe nor detect. So who says science and 'religion' don't agree? The more I read of both, the more they look the same to me ...


----------



## Parson

I wouldn't say they "look the same." I would say that there is some interesting connections which prove that we are still discovering what there is, and that what there is doesn't always fit neat categories of either science or religion.


----------



## Moonbat

Interference and Vertigo are correct, as far as I understand it. It all comes from a calculated mass that we can't see, urgo it must be dark and as it has a mass we assume it is matter.
Not sure about the idea that it exists in higher dimensions, but I guess that is one place it could be hiding. Personally I think it is a type of matter that fills the voids between galaxies but has some bizarre properties, like not interacting with normal matter much, if at all.


----------



## Interference

In the olden days, before they had the maths to need such things, they called it ether.

Everything exists side-by-side with its opposite, so perhaps is is an indeterminate form or residue of anti-matter?


----------



## Vertigo

Ah... ether's was not quite the same thing - they came up with the idea of ether because they knew sound waves were carried by movement of air (or whatever medium the sound was travelling through) therefore, since they had already figured out that light also moves in waves, they believed that a vacuum could not exist and there must be something there for the light to travel through; hence ether. We now know that light is a wave in an electromagnetic field and doesn't not need a "medium" to travel through.


----------



## Nik

Well, we may not have 'Aether', but we do have a quantum sea of uncertainty-limited virtual particles...

And I'm sorry I sounded a bit facetious in my earlier post: IMHO, there's a lot more 'ordinary' matter that we just haven't spotted yet and, subscribing to 'Occam's Razor', I'd prefer Newton was slightly wronger (sic) to invoking epicycle-like complexities of undetectable particles and SUSY 'sparticles'....

FWIW, I can remember when neutrinos were considered 'undetectable' and 'quarks' were no more than a drunken theorist's semi-deranged scribblings...

Fractional charges, indeed ! D'uh, I remember doing Millikan oil-drop experiment... 
Oil drop experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FWIW, there's a cautionary tale on that link about pushing the boundaries of Science...


----------



## Vertigo

My own feeling Nik is that Dark Matter will turn into something very like that. I don't think the scientists are claiming any great magical properites for dark matter - it's simply another name for a form of matter that we haven't yet detected. No different in that sense from the Higgs Boson particle which has still not yet been detected.


----------



## J Riff

You can read somewhere that there is a dust-particle for every X cubic miles of space. correct..? I don't know the numbers or how this could be observed or calculated, but, based on the size of good old space, doesn't that add up to a rather large amount of unseen matter all on it's own? 
No gravitational effects or in fact any effect from these lonely dust-motes either, they just float around out there being infitesimal and having no neighbors.


----------



## Vertigo

Not strictly unseen J, their presence can be detected and you will find that no matter how small, the very smallest particles do have a gravitational effect. All mass does. After the big bang there was no "solid" matter in the universe. It was effectively all just individual atoms of Hydrogen. Quantum uncertaintly resulted in slight "clumping" of these and gravity between the individual atoms slowly pulled these clumps together into the first stars. 

It has long been known that the vacuum of space is not absolute (even interstellar space, though I'm not sure about intergalactic) and I you will find that that has all been accounted for in their calculations.


----------



## J Riff

Why would there be no dust in intergalactic space? 
Seems like every big explosion, black hole, bang, would send a least minute amounts of matter shooting off everywhere, out of the system, or even out of any particular galaxy.
And since things are expanding, wouldn't these dust-motes slowly but steadily become further away from even the next dust-mote over? How can there be gravitational effects if the nearest neighbor is tiny and a million miles away?


----------



## Vertigo

I didn't say there is no dust, there certainly is, and a lot of it; every time a sun explodes it scatters it all over. In fact our sun and all our planets condensed out of the debris from a previous star's explosion. It was the gravitational pull between all the particles of that dust/debris and gas that caused them to clump together and form the solar system.

But there is likely to much less of it, if any at all, in intergalactic space as it will likely have all been gathered up by the galaxies.

However my point still stands that all known matter exters a gravitational force no matter how small. It doesn't take much velocity to "achieve" escape velocity from such a particle but it does take some. Also, as I understand it, the gravitational force never disappears over distance it just becomes less (infinitesimally so maybe but still there).


----------



## Nik

When you see images of 'active galaxies' with their monster black hole's polar jets chucking stuff outwards at serious fractions of c, that stuff must be going faster than that galaxy's escape velocity and, probably faster than its super-cluster's escape velocity, too. Then you have black holes & supernovae slingshotting 'widows and orphans' out of their home galaxies...

The space between clusters and super-clusters may appear empty, but there's room for a lot of missing mass, albeit spread very, very thinly. The conundrum, IIRC, is where and what the unseen mass is around 'common or garden' spiral galaxies such as our own...


----------



## Vertigo

I'm not sure black holes emit matter I think it is all energy, though I may well be wrong on that. However Exploding stars (supernovae) may well send some matter out at a speed greater than a galaxy's excape velocity. We are not talking relativistic speeds here though (nebulae are just the debris from such explosions and whilst they are typically expanding it is not that fast in relativistic terms). So I still suspect that most would likely be caught by the galaxy's gravitation. Also most of such explosions would not be happening on the edges of galaxies which would make it even harder for it to escape. I may be wrong and some may end up in intergalactic space, however the relative quatities would still be tiny and would not begin to account for all the missing mass (I believe we are "missing" more mass than all the (currently) known mass in the universe). Also I suspect that phenomena such as this are well understood and, again, will have been accounted for in their calculations.


----------



## RJM Corbet

There's 'Hawkins Radiation' coming out the other end of black holes. Well, Stephen Hawkins says so. But that's pure energy? Hey, maybe that's a line to follow? That dark energy (not dark matter) is a sort of recycled energy? The SF writers often come up with ideas before science gets around to making them real. But I have an idea you have already mentioned that -- about recycled energy?


----------



## Gary Compton

Have you considered that black holes could be portals to another dimension or parallel universe maybe?


----------



## RJM Corbet

Do you mean, like something coming UP from a black hole? Something we can not imagine, and which we would be unable to perceive? Now _there's_ an interesting idea!


----------



## Gary Compton

I think all the energy created around the black holes is caused by the fact that they are vortex's to another dimension and can be used to travel through and come back through by suitably advanced space travellers.

But I'm no Steven Hawking


----------



## RJM Corbet

A black hole is pure gravity with no mass, that sucks in all the time/space, matter, energy within its gravity. So whatever comes out would have to be able to deal with that?


----------



## Gary Compton

How about a dark matter reactor that nullifies the effect of the black hole?


----------



## Interference

Infinite mass?


----------



## RJM Corbet

Gary Compton said:


> How about a dark matter reactor that nullifies the effect of the black hole?


 
Well, then you'd just have nothing. No black hole?


----------



## Ursa major

Vertigo said:


> I'm not sure black holes emit matter I think it is all energy, though I may well be wrong on that.


I think you're right. However, by losing energy, the black hole effectively loses mass (because mass and energy are related).


----------



## Gary Compton

RJM Corbet said:


> Well, then you'd just have nothing. No black hole?



Exactly, so then you'd be able to move through the wormhole left in it's wake.


----------



## Interference

Ursa major said:


> I think you're right. However, by losing energy, the black hole effectively loses mass (because mass and energy are related).



Would mass not increase with loss of energy?  Just as energy increases when matter is destroyed?


----------



## RJM Corbet

Ursa major said:


> I think you're right. However, by losing energy, the black hole effectively loses mass (because mass and energy are related).


 
I think a black hole has no mass? It's pure gravity? Could be wrong?



Gary Compton said:


> Exactly, so then you'd be able to move through the wormhole left in it's wake.


 
Hmmm. The scientists need to come in here?


----------



## Ursa major

Interference said:


> Would mass not increase with loss of energy? Just as energy increases when matter is destroyed?


No, the energy lost has an equivalent loss of mass (calculated using m = E/_c_2).




RJM Corbet said:


> I think a black hole has no mass? It's pure gravity? Could be wrong?


Gravity is a force; a black hole is something which exerts gravity; it is not made _of_ gravity.


----------



## Gary Compton

Lets say for the sake of the argument that you have two worlds/dimensions connected by black holes.

On our side you'd get sucked into the vortex but as you moved through it you'd approach the energy from the other side that would be trying to push you back.

That's where a dark matter reactor would nullify the effect allowing you to move through into the new world.

Simples


----------



## RJM Corbet

Yah, but there wouldn't be a 'you'. You'd be stretched infinitely long. The atoms you consist of would be stripped of their electrons, etc. But if one's looking for wormholes, black holes might be an example. I don't really know the science?


----------



## Ursa major

Isn't the problem going to be time: as one approaches the event horizon, I believe that time slows** (as compared to that experienced away from the black hole), which probably limits the usefulness of anything requiring round trips. (Think of using a black hole for transport as waiting at Heathrow forever.)







** - Probably coming to a stop at the event horizon.


----------



## Gary Compton

Ah yes, but that's where the anti-time gizmatron comes in handy or if not, Scotty will sort it.


----------



## Interference

Gary Compton said:


> ...
> Simples





Loving the concept.

I could be utterly wrong about this, but Black Holes were a theoretical object for which later proof was found.  The original maths that led to the postulation of their existence was to do with, I think, something of infinite mass and infinite gravity.  When they found them, then theories about how they functioned began.

If I'm right, then what you're talking about, Gary, is something else - wormholes, which may or may not be an artifact of black holes but, I think, are separate thingies.


----------



## Gary Compton

Interference said:


> Loving the concept.
> 
> I could be utterly wrong about this, but Black Holes were a theoretical object for which later proof was found.  The original maths that led to the postulation of their existence was to do with, I think, something of infinite mass and infinite gravity.  When they found them, then theories about how they functioned began.
> 
> If I'm right, then what you're talking about, Gary, is something else - wormholes, which may or may not be an artifact of black holes but, I think, are separate thingies.



Or black wormholes?


----------



## Interference

Kinda pink, I think - that's why they're named after worms.


----------



## Ursa major

By the way, they have to be whole worms. (And if we want to use them, Earth worms....)


----------



## Gary Compton

Interference said:


> Kinda pink, I think - that's why they're named after worms.



 So if there are pink holes, you would enter the black hole on our side; an evil dark lord with a heart of stone, and exit the pink hole looking like a Barby doll with pink ribbons in your hair.

Not as good a story I feel


----------



## Interference

You're an artist, you can turn it around


----------



## Gary Compton

Aye a p*** artist


----------



## Interference

Your innate talent?

(I guess Ursa's gone? )


----------



## Gary Compton

He needs fluffy zzzz's


----------



## Interference

Hmmm ... We've had the "bubble theory" of the Universe (branes), but how come no one's considered the "fluffy theory" yet (pelts)?


----------



## Gary Compton

I see one of your countryman is leading the Masters


----------



## Interference

The Masters will not be led.  They are the Bright Lords of - oh, wait ... you mean golf ....


----------



## Gary Compton

Yeh sorry to bore you


----------



## Interference

That didn't bore me.  I've been bored by professionals, y'know.  Mostly on BBC under the guise of "science fiction drama".


----------



## woodsman

Interference said:


> The Masters will not be led.  They are the Bright Lords of - oh, wait ... you mean golf ....



Hahahaha - I chuckled 

Didn't realise you're Irish Int? I think the little lad has a great career in front of him. 

I wonder if that was a black &/or (worm) hole on the golf course at the beginning of Space Jam?


----------



## Interference

Much better than having a great career behind you, I always think


----------



## RJM Corbet

Ok. Back to the subject, after getting some much needed sleep. Incidentally, Inter, I'm 'plastic' Irish: my great grandfather was MP for County Wicklow. Am proud of it. Considering how 'we' have single handedly populated most of the USA and Australia, maybe green wormholes would be more viable than pink ones?
Ok, back to the subject ... errr, I've forgotten what I was going to say ...
Oh yah: as proposed by _Deathpool:_ you get matter/antimatter -- so what about antigravity? Or even anti_beings?_


----------



## Interference

RJM Corbet said:


> ...I'm 'plastic' Irish...



You can't judge by what's stamped on your feet.  Pat Pending isn't really an Irish name.


----------



## Vertigo

RJM Corbet said:


> Ok. Back to the subject, after getting some much needed sleep. Incidentally, Inter, I'm 'plastic' Irish: my great grandfather was MP for County Wicklow. Am proud of it. Considering how 'we' have single handedly populated most of the USA and Australia, maybe green wormholes would be more viable than pink ones?
> Ok, back to the subject ... errr, I've forgotten what I was going to say ...
> Oh yah: as proposed by _Deathpool:_ you get matter/antimatter -- so what about antigravity? Or even anti_beings?_


 
Antigravity is of course much beloved of SF authors, however since we don't really understand what actually creates the gravitational force in the first place (other than that it is tied to mass) we are still rather a long way from producing it ourselves.

Black holes do have mass (typically rather a lot of it), which is what creates the very large gravitational force that pulls in light and doesn't let it escape (hence black). Ursa is right that although they don't emit matter they do emit energy and that energy comes from the matter in the black hole. Hence a black hole will decay if it is losing more mass through the emission of energy than it gains from pulling in other mass from the surrounding space. This is why the micro black holes that are considered to be a possible side effect of the Large Hadron Collider at Cern, are not going to swallow the Earth whole as some sensationalist press have suggested. They only last for a tiny tiny (technological term that!) fraction of a second before they decay. That said I don't believe we have yet managed to detect any micro black holes; they are still just a prediction.

With regard to using a black hole as some sort of portal. I really really wouldn't advise it. First as mentioned elsewhere your time relative to the rest of the universe would stop at the event horizon, so you wouldn't actually get anywhere. Secondly before that happened the gravitational tidal forces as you approached would literally tear you apart.

Now wormholes on the other hand are fascinating things that might have possibilities along those lines, though I'm afraid I think they will almost certainly be to other points in this universe rather than another one, but a shortcut to get around the speed of light would be kind of nice! Sadly although science predicts their *possible* existence they have not come up with any natural process that would create one and we haven't observed or detected any... yet.


----------



## Gary Compton

Didnt Spock in the last Star Trek movie get sucked into a black hole that in a nano-second threw him back 25 years in time?

From a story point of view it was believable


----------



## woodsman

Vertigo said:


> Now wormholes on the other hand are fascinating things that might have possibilities along those lines, though I'm afraid I think they will almost certainly be to other points in this universe rather than another one, but a shortcut to get around the speed of light would be kind of nice! Sadly although science predicts their *possible* existence they have not come up with any natural process that would create one and we haven't observed or detected any... yet.



What if they're one way? I mean we'd be sending stuff through but not know where it's going and then anything on the other side would potentially be light years away from anywhere and unable to return. Unless we can create our own wormholes, I guess. 


Gary - liking the new look


----------



## Gary Compton

woodsman said:


> Gary - liking the new look



If I can't be famous myself, I'll copy someone who is


----------



## Vertigo

Yes I trust you have asked permission of Sir Ursa!!!!!

And yes Woodsman, I think I would want some sort of drone to go through and come back in one piece before I would go. Unfortunately you would still have to push me through kicking and screaming. The problem is that these theoretical wormholes are also theoretically seriously unstable. And apparently (you lot are going to love this one ):



> ...only be possible if exotic matter with negative energy density could be used to stabilize them. (Many physicists such as Stephen Hawking,[1] Kip Thorne,[2] and others[3][4][5] believe that the Casimir effect is evidence that negative energy densities are possible in nature).


 
Aaaaargh I know going to regret posting that one... I just know it


----------



## RJM Corbet

Well it was a toss up between Spock and Kirk ...
I've started watching the original Star Trek because they're showing it on tv, and Spock is _cool_, man. They hadn't even heard of black holes or Stephen Hawkins or quarks when they made that series. What I like about the original Star Trek is how they always win by locating the aliens' power source and knocking it out. And James Kirk is a real captain, you don't mess with him. The SFX are pretty good too. And everything else is based on it. Stargate has Tilk. I would have chosen him, but -- nah! Spock rules ...
Back to the subject. I think we all agree that there's no way to use a black hole as a wormhole, of whatever colour or nationality? Basically?
Also that a black hole is created by a small but very dense mass exerting enormous gravity? A mass than has been swallowed by its own gravity? Vanished up it's own as*hole, so to speak?
But the idea of some ... _thing_ ... emerging from a black hole, from a dimension beyond space/time matter? The center of the galaxy is a black hole? Where _is_ the dark matter coming from? If dark matter is exerting gravity from an outside dimension upon our galaxy? I'm looking at it as a sci-fi writer, not a scientist, boldly going where angels fear to tread ...
There are two schools of science: one is to prove a theory, the other is to disprove it?


----------



## woodsman

Gary Compton said:


> If I can't be famous myself, I'll copy someone who is



Hehe, I wonderr if we can get everyone to join and have an Agent Smith clone thing going on. 

I am Ursa
I am Ursa etc. 




Vertigo said:


> Yes I trust you have asked permission of Sir Ursa!!!!!
> 
> And yes Woodsman, I think I would want some sort of drone to go through and come back in one piece before I would go. Unfortunately you would still have to push me through kicking and screaming. The problem is that these theoretical wormholes are also theoretically seriously unstable. And apparently (you lot are going to love this one):
> 
> 
> 
> Aaaaargh I know going to regret posting that one... I just know it



In the interest of science I'm willing to make a sacrifice and push you through, getting kicked and screamed at in the process. 

I can't get the links in your link to work but, WHAT?? 

I wonder if Harrods will have an exotic matter section in the far future - branded with dseigner labels of course.


----------



## Vertigo

It's funny how one's interest in science can change so remarkably in a few seconds  ... just you try it! 

I suspect the problem with the links is they are "second hand". Here's the wiki page I took the quote from: Wormhole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I always get this image of matter being constructed in some straw hut on a Pacific Island.


----------



## RJM Corbet

I always get this image of matter being constructed in some straw hut on a Pacific Island.[/QUOTE]

Wasn't that constructed by Kon Tiki? From Atlantis?


----------



## Vertigo

HeHe now that would be exotic matter!


----------



## Metryq

RJM Corbet said:


> I've started watching the original Star Trek because they're showing it on tv, and Spock is _cool_, man. They hadn't even heard of black holes or Stephen Hawkins or quarks when they made that series.



The term "black hole" was not common parlance then, but the concept existed (Karl Schwarzschild, 1916). In the episode "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" there is reference to a "black star."



> Back to the subject. I think we all agree that there's no way to use a black hole as a wormhole, of whatever colour or nationality?



The subject was dark matter, which is an epicycle invented solely to make the math work in Big Bang cosmology which _assumes_ gravity drives the entire universe.



> Also that a black hole is created by a small but very dense mass exerting enormous gravity? A mass than has been swallowed by its own gravity? Vanished up it's own as*hole, so to speak?



_Exactly_. Amazing how that one completely escapes most people. The topological notion of gravity is absurd to begin with—the idea that "space," alleged to be absolute nothingness, can somehow "warp." Then when the "rubber sheet" idea of a collapsar running to infinity makes an apparent "tunnel," we pull out all the stops: time travel, worm holes to other dimensions, etc. (The "tunnel" is an illusion from treating the 2D "rubber sheet" analogy as though it were 3D.) If such a mass has "warped space" so extremely as to have dropped out of our universe, then why is that mass still affecting the universe in the form of a steep gravity well? The Big Bang posits the entire universe appearing out of nothingness, so why can't gravity appear out of nothing, too? (This sort of soft and fuzzy thinking is what I call the "cashmere effect.")

From this perspective it is easy to see how a phantom like dark matter could be suggested with a straight face—a type of matter that cannot be seen and which does not diffuse, dissipate, or obscure the light of distant stars and galaxies. Its only effect is gravity. The needed mass far exceeds even the visible, detectable mass of a galaxy in order for the galaxy to hold the shape it does—assuming gravity is holding it all together. 

Or perhaps it would make more sense to posit that gravity does not run the entire universe... On top of everything else, there's the dualism that gravity is instantaneous and that absolutely nothing (not even gravity) is faster than light. And we know this because Einstein said so.



> There are two schools of science: one is to prove a theory, the other is to disprove it?



I assume you're being facetious? In real science there is no "proof," but theories can be falsified. What remains after the sifting of data is what we hold to be true, but potentially anything can be falsified at any time.


----------



## Ursa major

Do people seriously postulate the instantaneous nature of gravity?

I'm sure I've seen a comment that if the sun were to instantaneously** cease to be, we stop orbiting the sun's previous position at the same time as we noticed that the big light in the sky was no longer there***, i.e. gravity works at the speed of light.




** - This is, obviously, not an experiment for the _amateur_ physicist....

*** - For those in daylight.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Metryq said:


> ... In real science there is no "proof," but theories can be falsified. What remains after the sifting of data is what we hold to be true, but potentially anything can be falsified at any time.


 

There I disagree. Mathematical 'proof' is absolute. But when you're working in 11 dimensions, who's going to spot your mistakes?



Ursa major said:


> Do people seriously postulate the instantaneous nature of gravity?
> 
> I'm sure I've seen a comment that if the sun were to instantaneously** cease to be, we stop orbiting the sun's previous position at the same time as we noticed that the big light in the sky was no longer there***, i.e. gravity works at the speed of light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ** - This is, obviously, not an experiment for the _amateur_ physicist....
> 
> *** - For those in daylight.


 
Does it? I have never thought about that one. Eight minutes, then? 
Think of this: if you're talking to someone on another continent on your cell phone, that person is hearing your voice before the person sitting across the room from you does, because the phone signal travels at light speed, and your voice across the room at the speed of sound? 
Nice to see you've got your old face back from Gary. Did he win it in a bet?


----------



## Ursa major

RJM Corbet said:


> Nice to see you've got your old face back from Gary. Did he win it in a bet?


He claims he constructed it from sketches made by Goldilocks.

(But I know that's impossible.... )


----------



## mosaix

Ursa major said:


> Do people seriously postulate the instantaneous nature of gravity?
> 
> I'm sure I've seen a comment that if the sun were to instantaneously** cease to be, we stop orbiting the sun's previous position at the same time as we noticed that the big light in the sky was no longer there***, i.e. gravity works at the speed of light.



I'm sure you're right on this one, UM. I thought it was Einstein himself that stated that gravity operated at the speed of light.


----------



## mosaix

RJM Corbet said:


> Think of this: if you're talking to someone on another continent on your cell phone, that person is hearing your voice before the person sitting across the room from you does, because the phone signal travels at light speed, and your voice across the room at the speed of sound?



You have take into account, however, that there are probably at least half a dozen telephone switches involved as well and maybe a satellite or two.  Each of these is a computer in it's own right so, although it's fast (surprisingly so), the speed of light is pushing it a bit.


----------



## Metryq

RJM Corbet said:


> There I disagree. Mathematical 'proof' is absolute.



_Mathematical_ proof? An excerpt from Heinlein's _Rocket Ship Galileo_:



> Cargraves grinned wickedly. “Okay, Aristotle, you picked it. Suppose you try to prove to me that there is a far side to the moon.”
> 
> “It stands to reason.”
> 
> “What sort of reason? Have you ever been there? Ever seen it?”
> 
> “No, but—”
> 
> “Ever met anybody who’s ever seen it? Ever read any accounts by anybody who claimed to have seen it?”
> 
> “No, I haven’t, but I’m sure there is one.”
> 
> “Why?”
> 
> “Because I can see the front of it.”
> 
> “What does that prove? Isn’t your experience, up to now, limited to things you’ve seen on earth? For that matter I can name a thing you’ve seen on earth that hasn’t any back side.”
> 
> “Huh? What sort of a thing? What are you guys talking about?”
> 
> It was Morrie this time, climbing up on the other side. Art said, “Hi, Morrie. Want your seat?”
> 
> “No, thanks. I’ll just squat here for the time being.” He settled himself, feet dangling. “What’s the argument?”
> 
> “Doc,” Ross answered, “is trying to prove there isn’t any other side to the moon.”
> 
> “No, no, no,” Cargraves hastily denied. “And repeat ‘no.’ I was trying to get you to prove your assertion that there was one. I was saying that there was a phenomenon even on earth which hasn’t any back side, to nail down Ross’s argument from experience with other matters — even allowing that earth experience necessarily applies to the moon, which I don’t.”
> 
> “Whoops! Slow up! Take the last one first. Don’t natural laws apply anywhere in the universe?”
> 
> “Pure assumption, unproved.”
> 
> “But astronomers make predictions, eclipses and such, based on that assumption — and they work out.”
> 
> “You’ve got it backwards. The Chinese were predicting eclipses long before the theory of the invariability of natural law was popular. Anyhow, at the best, we notice certain limited similarities between events in the sky and events on earth. Which has nothing to do with the question of a back side of the moon which we’ve never seen and may not be there.”
> 
> “But we’ve seen a lot of it,” Morrie pointed out.
> 
> “I get you,” Cargraves agreed. “Between librations and such — the eccentricity of the moon’s orbit and its tilt, we get to peek a little way around the edges from time to time and see about 6o per cent of its surface — if the surface is globular. But I’m talking about that missing 40 per cent that we’ve never seen.”
> 
> “Oh,” said Ross, “you mean the side we can’t see might just be sliced off, like an apple with a piece out of it. Well, you may be right, but I’ll bet you six chocolate malts, payable when we get back, that you’re all wet.”
> 
> “Nope,” Cargrave answered, “this is a scientific discussion and betting is inappropriate. Besides, I might lose. But I did not mean anything of the slice-out-of-an-apple sort. I meant just what I said: no back side at all. The possibility that when we swing around the moon to look at the other side, we won’t find anything at all, nothing, just empty space — that when we try to look at the moon from behind it, there won’t be any moon to be seen — not from that position. I’m not asserting that that is what we will find; I’m asking you to prove that we will find anything.”
> 
> “Wait a minute,” Morrie put in, as Art glanced wildly at the moon as if to assure himself that it was still there — it was! “You mentioned something of that sort on earth — a thing with no back. What was it? I’m from Missouri.”
> 
> “A rainbow. You can see it from just one side, the side that faces the sun. The other side does not exist.”
> 
> “But you can’t get behind it.”
> 
> “Then try it with a garden spray some sunny day. Walk around it. When you get behind it, it ain’t there.”
> 
> “Yes, but Doc,” Ross objected, “you’re just quibbling. The cases aren’t parallel. A rainbow is just light waves; the moon is something substantial.”
> 
> “That’s what I’m trying to get you to prove, and you haven’t proved it yet. How do you know the moon is substantial? All you have ever seen of it is just light waves, as with the rainbow.”
> 
> Ross thought about this. “Okay, I guess I see what you’re getting at. But we do know that the moon is substantial; they bounced radar off it, as far back as ‘46.”
> 
> “Just light waves again, Ross. Infra-red light, or ultra-shortwave radio, but the same spectrum. Come again.”
> 
> “Yes, but they bounced.”
> 
> “You are drawing an analogy from earth conditions again. I repeat, we know nothing of moon conditions except through the insubstantial waves of the electromagnetic spectrum.”
> 
> “How about tides?”
> 
> “Tides exist, certainly. We have seen them, wet our feet in them. But that proves nothing about the moon. The theory that the moon causes the tides is a sheer convenience, pure theory. We change theories as often as we change our underwear. Next year it may be simpler to assume that the tides cause the moon. Got any other ideas?”
> 
> Ross took a deep breath. “You’re trying to beat me down with words. All right, so I haven’t seen the other side of the moon. So I’ve never felt the moon, or taken a bite out of it. By the way, you can hang on to the theory that the moon is made of green cheese with that line of argument.”
> 
> “Not quite,” said Cargraves. “There is some data on that, for what it’s worth. An astronomer fellow made a spectrograph of green cheese and compared it with a spectrograph of the moon. No resemblance.”
> 
> Art chortled. “He didn’t, really?”
> 
> “Fact. You can look it up.”
> 
> Ross shrugged. “That’s no better than the radar data,” he said correctly. “But to get on with my proof. Granted that there is a front side to the moon, whatever it’s nature, just as long as it isn’t so insubstantial that it won’t even reflect radar, then there has to be some sort of a back, flat, round, square, or wiggly. That’s a matter of certain mathematical deduction.”
> 
> Morrie snorted.
> 
> Cargraves limited himself to a slight smile. “Now, Ross. Think it over. What is the content of mathematics?”
> 
> “The content of mathe—” He collapsed suddenly. “Oh...I guess I finally get it. Mathematics doesn’t have any content. If we found there wasn’t any other side, then we would just have to invent a new mathematics.”


----------



## Interference

Proof (truth), sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a proposition

Proof theory, a branch of mathematical logic that represents proofs as formal mathematical objects

Proof, a test

Which are we talking about?


----------



## RJM Corbet

Mertyq, a lot of people confuse physics with mathematics. A mathematical proof is cut and dried: The square of the hypotenuse of a right angle triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. That's the proposition. There is a mathematical proof to that, its about two pages of maths. Once proved, that's it. It becomes a premise. So the next guy, who uses that as part of a new proposition, doesn't have to provide the two pages of maths: it is proved already. And so it goes. You don't have to prove 2+2=4 every time you write it down. There is a proof, probably pages long, back there somewhere. And that's true all over the universe: 2+2=4 ...


----------



## Metryq

I understand the value in mathematics as a tool, but the products of math are not "evidence." If a model is good, it accounts for all previous observations in a logical framework and suggests new features that might be observed and tested. 

Physics was already into the margins of uncertainty when the theoreticians started piling it on during the 20th century. By the time you have an edifice like superstrings and membranes—that cannot even be tested and falsified—you're completely off the page. You can't build upward until the foundation is secure first. By that I don't mean theoreticians should not think outside the box. However, their fairy castles are handed down with authority as fact in every TV documentary. 

Carl Sagan let political agendas get in the way of his science, but at least he qualified many of his statements in the popular _Cosmos_ series with "some scientists think..."


----------



## Metryq

RJM Corbet said:


> And that's true all over the universe: 2+2=4 ...



That model dovetails with reality, doesn't it? But the math itself does not prove the reality—just the other way around. The reality validates the math. You could build a mathematical model that 2 + 2 = 5 and work out a proof. But upon testing it, you'd find that model does not match the world. All math can do is suggest new features of reality for us to test.


----------



## RJM Corbet

I completely disagree. There is no way to prove by mathematics that 2+2 = anything but 4! Physics, on the other hand, is about _theories,_ which are later superceded by new theories, as the old one become inadequate to explain new discoveries. When the atom looks more complicated than a previous model, physicists propose new particles (which is worth a thread on its own?)-- but mathematics is about definite, rock solid, indisputable mathematical _proofs --_ which is why mathematicians tend to look down a little bit on physicists as coming a close second to pure mathematicians.


----------



## Interference

I hate quoting myself, it's almost like shouting, isn't it, but I thought this bore repetition:



Interference said:


> Proof theory, a branch of mathematical logic that represents proofs as formal mathematical objects



Thank you for indulging my holler


----------



## Metryq

RJM Corbet said:


> but mathematics is about definite, rock solid, indisputable mathematical _proofs --_



_Within_ the world of math.



> which is why mathematicians tend to look down a little bit on physicists as coming a close second to pure mathematicians



Ah, I get it now. You're a Platonist, er, mathematician. No offense intended.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Nah. Plato was an ancient Greek mystic who thought the sun revolved around the sun. Physics has certain assumed _givens_: quantum numbers, electron shells, the uncertainty principle, and so on -- they aren't going to have to go back and prove it every time they propose something -- but all these are open to later someone finding a new and better model. Not so with mathematical proof: 2+2=4 -- no if's or and's or but's. There's nothing to stop someone trying to prove that 2+2=3 though, for the rest of their life, with no success. But anyway, I'm a _writer,_ bro ...


----------



## Interference

(I think there's mathematical proof knocking around somewhere that shows 1=0)


----------



## RJM Corbet

Oh no!
Help ...


----------



## Interference

Mathematical fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fun for all the family


----------



## Metryq

Ah, the old *"divide by zero"* house...


----------



## RJM Corbet

Interference said:


> Mathematical fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Fun for all the family


 
... and you had me lying awake half the night worrying about it ...


----------



## RJM Corbet

AAaarrrgghhh!!!!


----------



## Ursa major

If nothing else, it should teach us not to let ourselves become (too) divided over nothing....


----------



## Metryq

*About Nothing*
by
Isaac Asimov

	All of Earth waited for the small black hole to bring it to its end. It had been discovered by Professor Jerome Heironymus at the Lunar telescope in 2125 and it was clearly going to make an approach close enough for total tidal destruction.

	All of Earth made its wills and wept on each other's shoulders, saying, "Good-bye, good-bye, good-bye." Husbands said good-bye to their wives, brothers said good-by to their sisters, parents said good-bye to their children, owners said good-by to their pets, and lovers whispered good-bye to each other.

	But as the black hole approached, Hieronymus noted there was no gravitational effect. He studied it more closely and announced, with a chuckle, that it was not a black hole after all. 

	"It's nothing," he said. "Just an ordinary asteroid someone has painted black."

	He was killed by an infuriated mob, but not for that. He was killed only after he publicly announced that he would write a great an moving play about the whole episode.

	He said, "I shall call it _Much Adieu About Nothing._"

	All humanity applauded his death.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Metryq said:


> *About Nothing*
> by
> Isaac Asimov


 
Date of publication?


----------



## Metryq

RJM Corbet said:


> Date of publication?



I can't recall the exact date—a hardcover from the early '80s. It was the first item in an anthology titled _The Winds of Change_, if memory serves. The intro to "About Nothing" explained that Asimov had been hired to write a handful of ultra-short stories, each to fit on a postcard.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Well, Metrqy, has this thread unravelled to a natural end, or have I just found enough rope to hang myself? We? Will you stand up and be counted? Know what you're dealing with. BEWARE of interference. Be very, very, ware. He's Irish ...


----------



## Vertigo

Good job (in the nicest and most respectful possible way) that he's not around to post in our 75 word challenge - we wouldn't stand a chance! That's Asimov I'm talking about by the way!

Incidentally Wiki list About Nothing as being published 1977


----------



## RJM Corbet

Ain't that the truth ... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Asmov? Nah! Not judging by that ... But Mertyq, you have my attention -- how do you dispute that gravity drives (holds) the universe?


----------



## Metryq

RJM Corbet said:


> But Mertyq



Actually, it's "Metryq." I grew tired of being told that a certain name was already in use whenever I tried to join a forum. And I wanted something that I could use anywhere. The solution seemed to be in a unique spelling. Wikipedia lists the US as one of only three nations left on the planet _not_ officially switched to the Metric system. (My fellow countrymen are stubborn about such things.) Anyone in science or medicine uses Metric. That leaves only some engineers and perhaps auto mechanics. (I've actually run into carpenters who use Metric!) Anyway, "Metryq" is what I came up with. Short and unique. (Well, _I'm_ not short. 193cm.)



> you have my attention -- how do you dispute that gravity drives (holds) the universe?



Well, _I_ don't dispute it, but people far more qualified do. I'm just a technician and armchair fan of science. It seems there's no end of books and pop-science documentaries for the layman pushing the Big Bang theory. Yet from what I've seen the theory has more holes than a colander. And the "patches" are absolutely absurd—like the kinds of things a desperate PR firm might say to rescue a political candidate whose own record has irretrievably torpedoed him (e.g. Guth's inflation). 

I think the first pillar of the Big Bang was erected from the redshift recordings of Edwin Hubble (and Milton Humason), then coupled with Einstein's gravity as a way to make it work (warped space curving back on itself). Yet Hubble disagreed with the Doppler explanation for redshift. The work of Halton Arp (and others) showed an alternative explanation for redshifts—which at the very least should throw uncertainty onto redshift as a reliable distance indicator. 

(Arp's work covered quasars, which Big Bang theory places at the "event horizon" of the universe and spewing out such tremendous energies that the numbers are hard to believe. Yet they also display changes suggesting they are about the size of a solar system—either that or the changes are occurring far faster than the speed of light.)

There's so much detail that I can't go into with the limited space of a forum post. But this all sounds like a job for Occam's razor: never build a Rube Goldberg machine when a simple can opener will do the job. 

There's no ether because the Michelson-Morley experiment didn't find any fringing. Ah, but a later experiment in 1925(?) did find fringing. The basic difference between "Lorentzian Relativity" and Einsteinian Relativity is the warping of space in ER—and the fact that the speed of light is not a limit in LR. But the "warping" was proven by stars near the edge of the sun during a solar eclipse! There are alternative explanations for that. No experiment to date can declare ER the winner over LR, yet "everyone" seems to think Einstein's work is ironclad.

All of it comes down to the Big Bang somewhere. And even with holes in that theory bigger than Clavius crater, theoreticians cling to it. I actually read a quote from one astronomer acknowledging the train wreck that is Big Bang, yet opining that even a horribly broken model is better than no model at all.

Well, there are other models. The late Tom Van Flandern wrote a layman's book explaining his "Meta Model." I don't agree with everything in the book, but then I didn't agree with everything in Eric Lerner's The Big Bang Never Happened, either.

I'm not saying one of these theories is right and the others are wrong, but even a layman can see what a Rube Goldberg contraption orthodoxy is. Perhaps reality is some combination of these theories, and theories not yet formed. I made a number of animations for Van Flandern, and in order to do that I needed a clear understanding of the points he wanted to make. His book (and web site) explain an alternative cosmology that I find far easier to swallow than the Big Bang. There are also descriptions of experiments demonstrating that gravity is far faster than light (about 20 billion times). 

Right or wrong, the work of Van Flandern, Arp, Hans Alfven, and many others is very thought-provoking—and far more compelling than books that talk poetically about the "fabric" of the universe, or books with cutesy titles starting with the now clichéd "A Short History of..."

------------------------

Post Script: You've no doubt heard of the "twins paradox" in ER. That's where one twin on a high speed spaceflight to another star ages more slowly than the one who stays home on Earth. This sort of "time dilation" has even been demonstrated in cyclotrons. But you want to know the real paradox? ER posits that all frames of reference are equal. So the twin in the starship could validly consider his ship as stationary while the cosmos races past him. But then the twin on Earth should age more slowly. There are several articles on the MetaResearch site which address this problem in relation to GPS. And I think it was either Van Flandern's book mentioned above, or one of the MetaResearch newsletters (archived on the site) that explains the twins paradox in detail.

All of this stuff is beyond Newton's mechanistic universe, but not prone to flights of fancy like strings and branes.


----------



## Parson

*Metryq>* I tried to read that stuff on gravity and my head hurts. A social scientist should not dabble in the esoteric side of physical science. But it is clear that the question of the speed of gravity is a profound objection to the current models.


----------



## Ursa major

My head also hurts, and I've read by no means all of the paper, _The __Speed __of __Gravity __What __the __Experiments Say_. (See: The Speed of Gravity - What the Experiments Say.)

Does anyone know of any links to where the contents of this paper are debated properly (such as in the papers mentioned in the link above)?


----------



## Metryq

I'm usually reluctant to bring up any of this unorthodox stuff because people who are also not credentialled physicists immediately jump down my throat and start defending Einstein or reading passages from one of Brian Greene's books. So I applaud your willingness to even read some of those articles.

Where to find debate? The MetaResearch site has forums, and Van Flandern mentions various other discussion forums. By no means did he cook up the Meta Model and instantly gather disciples around himself. There has been a lot of high-brow debate about the finer points of the model, and Van Flandern made adjustments. The above mentioned book, _Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets_, will give the lay reader a basic understanding of the model, but I'm afraid the heavyweight stuff is beyond me, too. (The book does not indulge in complex math—but then again, how many lay books do?)

MetaResearch.org > Cosmology > Gravity lists many articles. At the bottom of the left column you will see "The Meta Cycle" which alludes to the book Pushing Gravity. The book includes articles from over a dozen physicists and astronomers working on Le Sage "corpuscular" gravity. So Van Flandern wasn't some fruitcake babbling to himself. Anyway, "The Meta Cycle" article is just one reply to debate.

"The Speed of Gravity What the Experiments Say" challenges many aspects of topological gravity ("the rubber sheet"). But in all of that, you want to know what really fascinated me? The Poynting-Robertson effect. I can imagine where such an effect might present problems for the nebular hypothesis of solar system formation. I know telescopes looking into deep space are thought to be watching solar system formation now, but I'm sure a snapshot of one instant in time is inadequate to paint a detailed picture. (Meanwhile Big Bang proponents presume to tell us in excruciating detail _exactly_ what happened in the picoseconds following the Big Bang. No uncertainty. But where the Solar system, and even where the Moon came from are still unsettled mysteries.)

What surprises me is that the world of physics did not know all along that gravity is faster than light. Galileo was perturbed by the orbital timing of the Jovian satellites which bear his name. They'd disappear too early and return too late. It was later realized that those satellites followed orbits large enough to show measurable light travel time delay. If gravity moved no faster than light, Kepler would have produced a Gordian knot to make the epicycles of the ancient world look like a simple bow knot.

Yet NASA/JPL making space probe navigation plots on the assumption that gravity is "instantaneous" (at least on the tiny scale of the Solar system) hit a bulls-eye every time.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Metryq said:


> Actually, it's "Metryq." I grew tired of being told that a certain name was already in use whenever I tried to join a forum. And I wanted something that I could use anywhere. The solution seemed to be in a unique spelling. Wikipedia lists the US as one of only three nations left on the planet _not_ officially switched to the Metric system. (My fellow countrymen are stubborn about such things.) Anyone in science or medicine uses Metric. That leaves only some engineers and perhaps auto mechanics. (I've actually run into carpenters who use Metric!) Anyway, "Metryq" is what I came up with. Short and unique. (Well, _I'm_ not short. 193cm.) ...


 
I apologise. I have printed out this stuff to read it carefully, because, you know, one is often in a hurry. Sorry


----------



## Metryq

RJM Corbet said:


> I apologise. I have printed out this stuff to read it carefully, because, you know, one is often in a hurry.



 Ha! No worries. I figured it was a typo. And since I hadn't made a post in the Introduction forum—people will get to know me by my other posts—I took it as an opportunity to explain my alias.

I am loving this site, the sense of community, and the thoughtful posts in the forums.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Ok, it's all a bit complex for anyone but a scientist to understand, where names are used: Van Flandern, Arp, and so on, that are not familiar to the layman. But, to me, the interesting part of all this is now the 'speed of gravity'?
As a layman: the light we see from distant objects, may be from objects that no longer exist? So there would be a measurable difference between the light and the gravity emitted by such objects? But there's no way of measuring that, beause any detection instrumemnts we have, are limited to the speed of light/electromagnetic radiation? Am I in the right area, so far? I'm sure the great minds are working on it.
As regards the _aether,_ famously disproved by the _Michaelson-Morely Experiment,_ now we have had to propose the _Higgs_, which seems to fulfill a similar function, but as a medium for _energy, _as opposed to _light_, pre-Einstein? 
The problem, for the sci-fi writer -- and this is a SFF forum -- is always the speed of light, and how to exceed the speed of light, to reach distant parts of the universe? Einstein came along and made it very difficult for us guys.
So now, if gravity is up to 20 times faster than light, the next step is a _gravity_ drive, which I'm sure has been thought of before. Or, damn, have I given it away ...


----------



## Metryq

Names:

*Tom Van Flandern*—Astronomer who wrote a book for laymen,_ Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets_, mentioned in an above post. The book describes his Meta Model cosmology, partly derived from *Le Sage*'s corpuscular gravity. Van Flandern's site, MetaResearch.org, contains many articles, links, and a discussion forum.

*Halton Arp*—Astronomer who compiled an _Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies_, which led to a cosmology with intrinsic redshift. Arp also wrote the forward to the book Pushing Gravity, containing papers from Van Flandern and about a dozen other scientists.

*Hannes Alfvén*—Swedish electrical engineer and plasma physicist whose plasma cosmology was described in Eric Lerner's book The Big Bang Never Happened.

These guys are the "wackos," the unorthodox. Wegener's continental drift was also flatly rejected when first published.



> *RJM Corbet wrote:* As a layman: the light we see from distant objects, may be from objects that no longer exist?



Exactly. I created an animation to illustrate this for Van Flandern's site (topic 6). As described on the site, this illustrates the difference between gravitational _force_ and gravitational _waves_.



> *RJM Corbet wrote:* So there would be a measurable difference between the light and the gravity emitted by such objects?



It's a little hard to arrange for something to vanish in order to test this, but the same effect is covered in the article "The Speed of Gravity—What the Experiments Say". In a nutshell, photons from the sun show "aberration," meaning they arrive at an angle, while the force of the sun's gravity _does not_ show any aberration. The Earth feels the gravity of the sun "instantly," while the sunlight is delayed. We see the sun in the sky where it _was_ 500 seconds ago.



> *RJM Corbet wrote:* As regards the aether, famously disproved by the Michaelson-Morely Experiment



See *What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about Relativity*, question 7.



> *RJM Corbet wrote:* The problem, for the sci-fi writer -- and this is a SFF forum -- is always the speed of light, and how to exceed the speed of light, to reach distant parts of the universe?



This is covered in the article "*Is faster-than-light propagation allowed by the laws of physics?*" A prop-driven plane cannot exceed the speed of sound because the speed of sound is the wave propagation limit for the medium:



> One might immediately object that, in particle accelerators, the behavior predicted by SR is observed to happen as speeds approach c. No matter how much energy is added, the particles cannot be made to reach or exceed speed c. However, the same is true for a propeller-driven aircraft in level flight trying to exceed the speed of sound. The air molecules cannot be driven faster than the speed of sound; so no matter how fast the propellers are made to spin, the speed of sound can never be reached or exceeded. However, a force propagating faster than the speed of sound, or a continuous acceleration such as jet propulsion, could succeed where the propellers failed. In an analogous way, a force propagating faster than the speed of light, such as gravity, should be able to drive a body to and past the light-speed “barrier”, even though forces such as those in particle accelerators are limited to propagating and pushing at light speed.



I recall Le Sage gravity mentioned in one of James P. Hogan's books. I don't think it was the "Giants" series, because those ships used an *Alcubierre drive*—or maybe that was Pohl's Heechee/Gateway stories. But yes, a "gravity rocket" would be overkill for reaching the corner convenience store.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Thank you. I will look them up. Yes. I like the analogy of aircraft/speed of sound. It does help explain. There _must_ be a way. As I said, in some previous thread, H.G Wells was on the moon long before NASA was. It's like the particle disintegration/reassembly travel thing -- Star Trek's _beam me down, Scotty?_ One day science will catch up, and do it. One can even say that, if not for the sci-fi writers, no-one would be interested on walking on the moon? Well, I'm not too sure about that one, but the imagination boldly goes before ...
If you google: _Dark Matter, Antimatter, and Time-Symmetry by Trevor Pitts_ (sorry I can't locate a precise web address, but that exact search will bring it to the top of the search engine) -- he extends the Feynman-Stueckelberg Interpretation of antimatter being identical to matter moving backwards in time, to account for those strange, extra-dimensional objects which are used to explain the gravity of dark matter. I don't know if you might find it interesting?


----------



## chrispenycate

But several propellor driven craft did exceed the speed of sound, by the simple technique of going as fast as they could, then diving, and adding gravitational acceleration. Admittedly, there was a tendency for the wings to fall off, but temporarily, at least, the craft achieved supersonic flight (albeit downwards). And hypersonic shock waves can be generated by even powerful chemical explosions.

But, Special relativity depends on the proposition that no information can travel faster than light. If a gravitational field propagates at a speed greater than that of light, as the "speed of gravity" link implies, half the suppositions on which Einstein's extremely elegant mathematics are based fall apart.

In conventional relativity the fact of each twin ageing faster than the other matters not, as long as a continuous velocity is maintained, as the two frames of reference can only be compared by signals at light speed or below, and they can never meet. Only if an acceleration, experienced as an external force, is applied to one of them do the equations start to get a bit hairy. The most convincing demonstration of time dilation was an atomic clock in low Earth orbit, where the "tick" was slowed relative to its ground-based reference; but, while it was travelling at a constant speed, its velocity was continuously changing as Earth's gravity accelerated it. Once upon a time I could have delivered the equations by which this inertial force modified the passage of time (even for caesium resonance) but I fear the disuse of the information and my developing senility would now require me looking them up.

But, despite the fact that the Theory of Relativity describes the universe better than anything else we have at present, if gravity, quantum entanglement and photon teleportation all transmit information faster than light, it is flawed, and, if this information transfer is instantaneous we need to reintroduce the idea of simultaneity, and a cosmic frame (in which time is experienced differently depending on dV/dt, not V). And the theory which allows this might well allow instantaneous (concept reintroduced after being rendered obsolete by special relativity) displacement. Not FTL transport, as you wouldn't be moving, as movement implies a continuous stream of positions between departure and destination.

I don't like dark matter. It's too much  a fudge factor, a 'constant by which we multiply the results we obtained to get the answer we expected'. When experimental scientists start doing this it implies they are hanging onto a theory at all costs, despite growing evidence in its imperfections, and a real need for an upgraded version. Not exactly true scientific detachment, but scientists are frequently human beings first, selfless saints much further down the list.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Yes. _Movement_ implies movement forward in time? Along an eliptical vortex? Or am I getting too out of my depth? The thing about _relativity_ is that it has worked in practice; light _is_ bent by gravity. But, and again I could be out of line here -- quantum mechanics makes nonsense of time and space? That's where the quantum/gravity unification thing is going? Isaac Newton proved gravity. Einstein proved relativity. I know, those are two famous names -- the Mick Jagger's of science -- although Newton was in a different class to even Einstein.
You have Richard Feynman, and I'm sure many others. You have particles as _probabilities._ An electron can be anywhere, although it is 99.99% probably in the shell where it's supposed to be, it could nip out and whizz around Australia, then return, and no-one would be any the wiser.
So everything we can perceive, we perceive because it exists _in time_. But there is a dimension that surrounds and contains and permeates the time/space dimension _... probably? _And that dimension is not only different to the time/space dimension of nature (by which I mean the whole perceiveable universe) -- but _superior_ to it, and the beings inhabiting that dimension are superior to natural beings? 
They're out there, they can see us, we can't see them -- unless they choose to make themselves visible to us.
We call them _spiritual_ entities ...


----------



## Metryq

> *Chrispenycate wrote:* But several propellor driven craft did exceed the speed of sound



As you note, this was by combining gravity into a maneuver jet pilots would later call the "dipsy doodle." However, purely by moving air with a prop, breaking the sound barrier is impossible. 



> *Chrispenycate wrote:* But, Special relativity depends on the proposition that no information can travel faster than light



Gravity in the Meta Model is an ocean of faster-than-light particles. When two masses generate a "shadow" between them, the particle "pressure" on all other sides ends up pushing the masses together. So although gravity is faster than light, it does not follow that information can be carried thus. Perhaps a "gravity rocket" will one day propel a ship faster than light. At that point someone else will have to worry about paradoxes—but remember that time and space are not bound together in Lorentzian Relativity as in Einsteinian Relativity (if I understand what I've read). So paradoxes will be a null concept (along with time travel). A comparison between LR and SR can be found here:

Is faster-than-light propagation allowed by the laws of physics?



> *Chrispenycate wrote:* But, despite the fact that the Theory of Relativity describes the universe better than anything else we have at present, if gravity, quantum entanglement and photon teleportation all transmit information faster than light, it is flawed



The article at the above link notes "it is important to realize that none of the 11 independent experiments said to confirm the validity of SR experimentally distinguish it from LR—at least not in Einstein's favor." So LR and ER are on an equal footing, and quantum mechanics could be the tie breaker.



> *Chrispenycate wrote:* Not exactly true scientific detachment



And that is exactly why I find a lot of this alternative stuff fascinating. People will be people, but the universe will be what it is no matter what people say—unless that someone happens to be Haruhi Suzumiya! 



> *RJM Corbet wrote:* The thing about relativity is that it has worked in practice



And so has Lorentzian relativity, as noted above.



> *RJM Corbet wrote:* light is bent by gravity.



The Meta Model's "ocean of c-gravitons" produces "atmospheres" of particles around masses, thus resulting in refraction like that seen in water.



> *RJM Corbet wrote:* But there is a dimension that surrounds and contains and permeates the time/space dimension



That sounds like Ben Kenobi's description of the Force in _Star Wars_. (Hey, it wasn't called _A New Hope_ the first time I saw it!) I like that far better than "midichlorians." Geez, they turned this spiritual, mystical power into a disease! But seriously, Occam's razor cuts it out. Until it is actually needed to explain the observable universe, it has no place in the model.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Thank you _Metryq. _Have bookmarked the Meta Website and looks like I will be spending quite a lot of time there. Very valuable website. I would be quite interested to know what both you and Crispen think of Trevor Pitt's paper, when you've had time to look at it? It seems to encapsulate this whole discussion ...


----------

