/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11263160
the leftover shit on my dick when i fuck your mom's ass

The aether

>>11263503
the chad looks liek a hunchbacked old man yelling at a kid to get off his lawn with the pic minimized lol

>>11263503
/thread

>>11263160
Cold and alone, like you.

>>11263543
LOL OH MAN WE'RE GETTIN PERSONAL UP IN THIS BITCH

>>11263160
An undiscovered neutrino

>>11263160
bitches still don't know how matter forms from the 11 dimension because they study b.s. science to begin with.

>>11263160
gravity is on a fundamental level, rounded up. hence the extra “matter”. engineers were right.

>>11263160
a condensate of the 11th dimension.

>>11263160
Dark matter is just normal matter hiding in a 4th spatial dimension.

None of this magic particle crap.
No compactified bullshit.
No adding dimensions because it makes your maths parts feel all tingly.

Just one more dimension, you can do the experiment at home if you feel like it.
>>11264415

>>11263160
A show Art Bell used to host.

>>11265306
>dark matter is in the 4th dimension
>no adding dimensions
>just one more dimension

>>11265494
You can't even do a decent job at misrepresenting what was said.
No wonder you felt the need to post that.

>>11265544
I wasn't misrepresenting it at all. I read directly from his post.

>>11265632
>no adding dimensions
>just one more dimension
>no dimensions
>one dimension
Singular v.s. plural.

Also, adding multiple dimensions because "the maths works" is different from adding one dimension to create a physical model.

Guess I could have been more precise in my wording though.

>>11265679
literally semantics.
>Also, adding multiple dimensions because "the maths works" is different from adding one dimension to create a physical model.
You have no idea why extra dimensions are used in some models of high energy physics, do you? If the best you can come up with is to quote some meme about "the math working" then you clearly don't understand the problem.

>>11265715
>literally semantics.
That. Was. The. Point.

>You have no idea why extra dimensions are used in some models of high energy physics, do you?
Sorry. Didn't realise that was relevant to dark matter, if you can link some related material I'd like to know more.
Any observational evidence for extra dimensions would be gratefully received as well.

>>11263160
gravittional non-linearities, basically gravitons are not leaving their host disk galaxies, creating both dark matter and dark energy effects

>>11263160
a meme
>>11263503
this is an even bigger meme

>>11263503
>Chad metaphysician
OK boomer

>>11265776
>Didn't realise that was relevant to dark matter, if you can link some related material I'd like to know more.
It could be since Dark matter is a completely made up thing to begin with.

>Any observational evidence for extra dimensions would be gratefully received as well.
I second this with the addition of "Dark Matter"

>>11265810
>When the aether memes so hard that it induces over a hundred years of physics to try and keep denying it/ redescribe the same thing over and over again with fancier, spookier terminology.

Silly terms such as "quantum glue", "zero point", "Jesus Christ", "God", "Biggs Busom" and my personal favorites "Waves" and "Oscillations" (which is what something does and is not an actual "thing").

>>11265715
There is
"Dimensional"
(to have dimension, to be empirical)
and
"No dimension"
(Is not a thing in specific, not phenomenal)

Now why is there 2 extra dimensions? If it is arbitrary then they don't actually exist.

>>11265306
>Dark matter is
What? What specifically is it? "Hiding" is what something does, not something itself.

>>11263160
>aether
It generally played the role of That Thing Which Magically Solves All the Problems in My Pet Theory

>>11265881
>It could be since Dark matter is a completely made up thing to begin with.
Depends on your definition of dark matter.
The gravitational lensing we observe is real "enough".
The dark matter hypothesized to account for the galaxy rotation curve has never been detected, has been largely ruled out and is outclassed by modified gravity for that scenario. So not real.

>Dark matter is
>What? What specifically is it?
I'm saying dark matter is just normal matter.
Apparently gravity is the only way to detect "dark matter", there is no way to distinguish between gravity coming from normal matter or dark matter.
Dark matter has never been detected without normal matter.
If the gravitational effects that we are attributing to dark matter is just us underestimating the mass of normal matter that we observe, then...problem solved.

>"Hiding" is what something does, not something itself.
Yeah, I anthropomorphised that a bit.
Let's say you're stuck on a 2D plane and have no depth perception.
You know the density of metal and varying sizes of metal sheets pass along your line of sight, from left to right. You assume they are all on the same plane.
All of your guesses for the mass of each metal sheet will be accurate enough.
If someone wants to trick you, they can have a metal sheet pass through your line of sight at a further distance than you are used to (be a pal and agree that there's no other way for you to determine the sheet's distance from you).
That metal sheet will appear to be smaller than it really is, you can't get closer to it or inspect it from any other angle, so using your known density and apparent size, you come up with an estimate for mass that is lower than it's proper mass.
The person trying to trick you is "hiding" the objects proper size using a 3rd dimension.

From Earth, being subjected to the gravity from our Sun, Galaxy, Cluster, Filament, etc. we can't change our position in the 4th dimension to inspect other stars.
All we can do is infer.

>>11265937
>dark matter is just us underestimating the mass of normal matter that we observe, then...problem solved.
doesn't explain why some galaxies have no dark matter
doesn't explain the milky way's halo

>>11265948
>doesn't explain why some galaxies have no dark matter
Ooh. I like this.
I originally pictured my 4th dimension as a Space-Time Density variable.
So in the densest objects, there should be the greatest evidence of "dark matter" (Bullet Cluster).
And in less dense objects there should be little-to-zero evidence of dark matter.
You're referring to ultra-diffuse galaxies, right?

>doesn't explain the milky way's halo
Can you be more specific? Please?

>>11265937
>Depends on your definition of dark matter.
>The dark matter hypothesized..So not real.
This shit writes itself, I swear to god

>The gravitational lensing we observe is real "enough".
Gravity ultimately does not exist and is not it's own independent "Force".

>I'm saying dark matter is just normal matter.
You just said it doesn't exist.
>Apparently gravity is the only way to detect "dark matter", there is no way to distinguish between gravity coming from normal matter or dark matter.
"it's bullshit"
>Dark matter has never been detected without normal matter
I don't get it, you just said it doesn't exist several times and now you say it has been and has been detected? Make up your mind please.

>That metal sheet will appear to be smaller than it really is, you can't get closer to it or inspect it from any other angle, so using your known density and apparent size, you come up with an estimate for mass that is lower than it's proper mass.
>The person trying to trick you is "hiding" the objects proper size using a 3rd dimension.

>It all works on Euclidean Geometry except for when it doesn't

So basically everything you just said is "it's the aether " given that it all comes down to density. "Of matter" or whatever, but a medium none the less. Literally Aether redescribed with the addition of extra assumed "dimensions". I thought "no dimension" and "having dimension" would have been simple enough but 4 dimensions? The fuck did those come from?

>>11265306

No, Dark matter are fields that doesn't interact with our fields. Not extra dimensions.

>>11266030
You wanna interpret a 4th dimension determined by mass as a field?
Be my guest.

>>11266021
>Depends on your definition of dark matter.
Depends on your definition.
Is real, depends on your definition.
Is not real, depends on your definition.
DEPENDS ON YOUR DEFINITION.

>Gravity ultimately...
...has some effect.

>You just said it doesn't exist.
DEPENDS ON YOUR DEFINITION.

>"it's bullshit"
If you're defining dark matter as a particle distinct from normal matter, agreed.
Depends on your definition of dark matter.

>I don't get it, you just said it doesn't exist several times
DEPENDS ON YOUR DEFINITION.

>>11266082
Actually it depends on empirical evidence, of which there is none for dark matter.

>...has some effect.
cool story bro. Now explain how?

>If you're defining dark matter as a particle distinct from normal matter, agreed.
>Depends on your definition of dark matter.

I'm not arguing semantics with you. Show me empirical evidence of dark matter or don't. In fact, why don't you show me empirical evidence of any particle while you're at it.

>DEPENDS ON YOUR DEFINITION.
Oh I see, well I define you as a "mental midget who will shut the fuck up and show me empirical evidence of dark matter or just plain shut the fuck up". See how I defined you? By your logic you now must behave and become this definition simply because I stated so. Don't keep me waiting now mr. word salad.

>but you still haven't defined muh dark matter.

Why would I waste my energy defining what could literally lack definition? I am going by YOUR DEFINITION of dark matter, if you are indeed this >>11265937 poster which basically equates it to "it is hypothesized, and also has never been detected". So based on both "our definitions" IT DOESN'T EXIST.

>>11266118
If you define dark matter as WIMPs or MaCHOs, dark matter doesn't exist.
If you define dark matter as "the cause of stronger gravitational lensing we observe from our estimates of normal matter alone", then dark matter is something, be it a force or particle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Gravitational_lensing

>>11265679
>Also, adding multiple dimensions because "the maths works" is different from adding one dimension to create a physical model.
No its not lmao, its identical. The difference is in your intuition.

>>11263160
Its just a placeholder for an unknown quantity we use to satisfy our mathematical models because every other avenue of reconciliation has failed spectacularly.

pic for brainlets

>>11266118
>In fact, why don't you show me empirical evidence of any particle while you're at it.

>>11266830
Oh.
You can attach a pic of a physical model for this then?

>>11266848
Everybody has had the idea that it's "Dark Matter" alone.
Sounds good, but doesn't really fit reality.
Or the data for galaxy rotation curves.
Which is what it was supposed to solve.

>>11265544
dubs

>>11266811
>more dualistic bullshit
Right, you don't know anything. Anyone else care to try?

>>11266856
No, I literally asked for
SCIENTIFIC
PROOF
You know, the kind you're supposed to have in order to FALSIFY IT TO BEGIN WITH.

>"No I can sit here and falsify that which doesn't even exist to begin with"
You sure can, that is what religion is for. Literally making up the shit to falsify, now fuck off moron.

Literally just a fudge factor like + C

>>11267081
>An Apple is a fruit.
>An Apple is not also a pear.
>more dualistic bullshit amirite!!!

>Prove an apple is a fruit!
>NO I MEAN SCIENTIFIC PROOF.
>LITERALLY

>>11263755
Not any more.

>>11267116
>An Apple is a fruit.
>An Apple is not also a pear.

>you defined something with what it is and what it is NOT
>What something is not somehow translates into a dualistic argument of "it" being something else when you have only shown what it is NOT and then proved that what it is NOT is discrete in some manner.
Which is fine, you have "what dark matter is not". It then becomes dualistic when you claim that at the same time it "is and is not". Make up your mind and get back to me, and be sure to bring some empirical evidence of it while you're at it.

An apple "is a fruit". You have clarified it is a fruit
An apple "is not also a pear". You have clarified that it is not a specific type of fruit
Both of these statements are literally testable. We can actually figure out whether they are true or not.

"Dark matter is.....what?" You don't have that. So please stop talking out your ass about it.
"Dark matter is not x". Well you're not saying anything to any avail. It's not a liberating statement in the slightest because you still don't know what it is. At least you know what it isn't...and will constantly know that until you actually provide me evidence of it that is.


>Prove an apple is a fruit!
>NO I MEAN SCIENTIFIC PROOF.
>LITERALLY

You can't do it can you? You cannot show me empirical evidence of dark matter yet for some reason you think that making an argument that it exists means anything. It doesn't. That is why I am asking for empirical evidence of it. That way you can save yourself some time and hassle instead of literally chasing shadows.

>>11266082
>You wanna interpret a 4th dimension determined by mass as a field?
>Be my guest.

No, I mean it's most likely particles of a field outside the standard model that only interacts with our particles via gravity.

>>11267208
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Gravitational_lensing
Do you agree or disagree that this indicates there is more mass than our current estimates of normal matter?

Hold on hold on....
soooooooo...
what if...
you know like..
what if this thing....
which is like empty space.....
was actual matter......
Aaaaand it's dark becaaause we see dark
>applause
>wins noble prize for the creation of nigger-gravitational-field mechanics

>>11267241
>"The more massive an object, the more lensing is observed."

What is the gravity at the center of a large mass?

>Do you agree or disagree that this indicates there is more mass than our current estimates of normal matter?

Do you agree or disagree that there is not one shred of empirical evidence in this article that proves the existence of dark matter? Actually it doesn't matter if you agree or not, because there is still no evidence. By the logic of this article, dark matter is literally no different than "Feng Shui".

>>11267257
>actually observed evidence in the form of visible lensing is no different than Feng Shiu

why are dark matter denialists so dum, I need scientific proof

>>11267257
Retard confirmed.
Can't answer a simple yes/no question.

>>11267287
>actually observed evidence in the form of visible lensing is no different than Feng Shiu

It literally isn't. It's the same fucking thing as saying a table moved in a different position is a completely different table that does something different. It's the same fucking table! It doesn't cause anything different happen!

>why are dark matter denialists so dum
While I cannot necessarily deny the existence of that which I cannot even speak of, whatever I or anyone says about it won't actually mean anything.That is of course until you provide me some empirical evidence that I may discuss with you about it.

>>11267304
I literally cannot answer. It is not a "thing" to be discussed of. That is unless you would like to provide me empirical evidence of it so that we may actually definitively speak of it.

>>11263160
bullshit is what it is

Casimir force.

>>11263160
>What is Dark Matter?
It's what comes out of your mom's cooch every 28 days.

Why don't you go get a PhD in physics and go figure it out yourself? You really expect a bunch of LARPing losers on a mongolian horse breeders forum to know this shit?

>>1126694
I will as soon as you post a picture of a hidden 4th spatial dimension. The only difference between what you suggest here >>11265306 and any other theory involving additional spatial dimensions is the number.

>>11267339
>there is no empirical evidence yet so lets not think about it at all
Natural Philosophy, google it sometime.

>>11269221
>as soon as you post a picture of a hidden 4th spatial dimension

You can't really take a pic of a dimension.
Also not a "hidden" 4th dimension, just not something we notice on a scale smaller than our solar system.
Will this do?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbUOScpu0ws
https://youtu.be/LOVzytir7bM

>>11269227
>Natural Philosophy, google it sometime.
That is like the "N" word around these parts. If you want to discuss it like that then >>>/his/ is more suited for that.

But I'll entertain you for now. What do you think dark matter is? What methods do you propose in order to test for it? If it cannot be tested then how can it exist? If it cannot be proven as a quantity then why does QM discuss it?

dark matter is a alternate warping of the 11 dimension and it's formed from blackholes.

>>11270409
Pay attention retard.
You are arguing against dark matter, the magic particle (WIMPs).
Literally nobody is arguing for dark matter the magic particle.
You are arguing with somebody who does not exist. That is a sign of mental illness.

>>11265306
I'm proposing that the mass indicated by gravitational lensing can be accounted for by factoring in a 4th dimension.
In which case, these questions:
>What do you think dark matter is? What methods do you propose in order to test for it? If it cannot be tested then how can it exist?
applied to normal matter, also make you sound like you've completely lost your mind.

We can test this idea by projecting a 2D pattern on to a 3D surface.
This results in a transformation that increases the perimeter of the orbits, exponentially, going from outside-in. Increasing the circumference, whilst maintaining orbital periods, increases the velocity of an object.
If the predictions match the observations, the theory is correct.

You can do this at home.
Create a pattern of concentric orbits.
Use a light source to project this onto a bowl (or something).
This should result in a pattern similar to pic related.

Do the maths.
Say, by using the planets in our solar system, which obey the inverse-square law.
For each orbit, take the square root of the difference between it and the outer-most object.
Multiply this value by the original orbit to get your new orbit circumference.
Divide the new circumference by the orbital period to get your new velocity.
Plot these values to get a flat velocity curve, from an exponential velocity curve.

Do those things. Then if I'm wrong, you can can show me.
Otherwise, you're just another post-modernist, 'tarding up the internet.

>>11263160
dark mater is completely imaginary, ken freeman invented a fictitious invisible halo of extra mass in 1979 to explain the surprisingly broad spectral lines that he was seeing in the spectra of galaxies, freeman explained that his calculated halo was strictly gedankenexperiment, but less educated heads took freeman's "what if" as gospel and now all other explanations for the shape of spectral lines in galaxies are rejected a priori, even ones that don't require enormous fictitious invisible masses. ken freeman was never a physics, he was an observational astronomer, a professional at using very large camera lenses to photograph distant objects and he only had a very simple grasp of gravity and it's affect on galactic rotation when he theorized dark matter, he used what he'd been taught about issac newton to figure it all out and his publications reflect all of this.