/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 82 KB, 1024x768, 38271space.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 01:03:53 2011 No.3927214 [Reply] [Original]

astrophycicists listen up.

Black holes serve a greater purpose in my new model of the universe, they tear apart the atom into massless particles which are superheated and given increased speed the closer to the center they get.

They byproducts of this process are the energy bursts observed.

The massless particles being shot out are what we call Dark matter, matter without mass, matter that cannot be seen, matter that is shooting out from black holes and interacting with the electro magnestism and gravity and radiation of normal matter on a minute scale which causes the so called Dark flows.

Black holes are a necessary function of the universe, without them the gas cloud created by the big bang would have had no force against them forcing them to form into larger objects as they are drawn towards the sun.

Keep in mind my model of the universe states that at the center of each solar system is a minute gravity well strong enough to draw in matter, but weak enough so that once an object of large enough mass moves close enough, the gravity wells effect is nulled leaving a spinning system.

The mass that was pulled close to the gravity well is put under incredible pressures and stresses which eventually leads to fission, after time the process reaches tipping point the sun/gravity well no longer balancse the gravity and is litereally exploded or crushed, the result is a huge increase in dark matter (Which furthers the explosive force).

At the end all mass will have been converted to massless particles, and heres where it gets fun.

Massless particles can travel faster than light, dark matter is literally shot back through time, we cant view it because it exists outside of our space time and is travelling in an opposite direction.

Your universe is hearby explained, my name is luke malloch, and I am not a graduate, I am one man with a vision and strong knowledge of physics and astrophysics.

suggestions or questions welcomed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 01:07:53 2011 No.3927235 BLACK HOLE: SINGULAR POINT OR SUPERDENSE CHUNK OF MASS? ALSO, FEEL FREE TO EXPLAIN WHAT GRAVITY IS.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 01:09:53 2011 No.3927244 >>3927235 gravity: acceleration of the expansion of the universe in the direction of time

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 01:11:53 2011 No.3927249

>massless particles superheated
NOPE
>Dark matter from massless particles
NOPE
>Black holes, made from stars, are vital to make more stars
NOPE
>dark matter mapping is no where closer to black holes like you think
NOPE
>no testable predictions
NOPE
>No mathematics
NOPE
>strong knowledge of physics
NOPE
>Bullshit made up by highschooler thought to be "deep thoughts"
BULLSEYE!

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 01:18:53 2011 No.3927272 File: 12 KB, 250x183, feynman-open.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3927249 "Hey why don't you try the combination 10-20-30?"

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 01:18:53 2011 No.3927273

>>3927235
I see the universe as a floating mesh with vortex points caused by the original explosive force of the big bang.

They created anchor points which drew in the gas around into closer quaters, this lead to the formation of asteroids, planets etc.

In our system One large mass object was pulled further than the rest, towards the central spinning point of our system (hence it doesnt just spin on its center axis it actually orbits an invisble spot).

As it developed mass it created its own gravitational force, and came into direct conflict with the central gravity well, this caused it to erupt into flames, imagine someone pouring gasoline on embers, in this case energy and movement were poured onto a large mass formed from large chunks of super heated materials that were once the gas left from the big bang, creating fission on a massive scale.

If the sun hadnt been pulled so close to the gravity well it would have burnt itself out and a crust would have formed. Instead the competing gravitational forces increased the density and heat of the matter until it erupted into the sun.

Whats even more interesting is that my model completly explains twin star systems, because instead of one large object being dragged in, two get dragged in before the central gravity wells forces become pacified.

Gravity is gravity, electro magnestism is electro magnetism, and light is light.

I can offer you no more answer than you should allready know

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 01:20:53 2011 No.3927279 >>3927249 You truly failed to understand anything said didnt you, please just leave, your idiocy is just pathetic.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 01:20:53 2011 No.3927282 i see everything scientists know about dark holes as a pile of guess work

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 01:21:53 2011 No.3927284 >>3927279 lol

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 01:22:53 2011 No.3927285 >>gravity: acceleration of the expansion of the universe in the direction of time my mind is full of fuck .jpg

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 01:24:53 2011 No.3927298 Please explain with math. Unless your too high.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 01:24:53 2011 No.3927300

>>3927282
Some of it is, and I have been fascinated by the idiocy of physicists for many years.

I called einstein out before the neutrino experiment, he left no room for exception, he based it on solid reasoning, but didnt complete the theory, because he failed to see the possibility of massless particles, which completly throw out his relativity formula.

It therefore follows that physicists have been searching for dark matter using a faulty premise, that nothing can travel faster than light, and therefore cant travel backwards through time.

Josef crossed the Atlantic !!nUf2NflSAyw Thu Oct 20 01:24:53 2011 No.3927301

Beyond the surface, all spherical symmetric bodies have the same gravitational field. As an example, if the sun was replaced by a black hole of the same mass, it would get dark and cold here, but the trajectory of Earth wouldn't change at all.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 01:31:53 2011 No.3927327

>>3927298
I am not a mathmetician, though start with the E=mc2.

If you remove m the formula become E=c2, and all of a sudden none of his work has relevance to the actual universe. Our predictions of how particles react are flawed because under extreme circustances its been proven that our formulas are based on the wrong information.

As for the black hole part, Im sorry give me a few hundred million pound, a series of the most powerful telescopes aimed at the universe, and finally a team of 200 of the best phycists in the world and I will give you the math.

The experiments im actualy working on right now using einsteins original methods to developed relativity, im not yet ready to begin demonstrating these things yet as it will require an amount of time and resources but let me just say, there is support for everything I have said out there.

My purpose isnt to give you the final theory, its to act as stephen hawking and challenge you to prove my theorhetical model incorrect.

sorry for piss poor spelling my keyboard is wireless and dieing, typing anything is straining my patience.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 01:34:53 2011 No.3927336 >>3927327 >E=mc2 >E=c2 >m=1 >wat

>>	Josef crossed the Atlantic !!nUf2NflSAyw Thu Oct 20 01:34:53 2011 No.3927339 >>3927327 >If you remove m the formula become E=c2 There's your error. Crossing out the mass makes it <span class="math">E=c[/spoiler].

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 01:35:53 2011 No.3927340

>>3927301
You dont understand, it isnt yet a black hole, its a gravity well at the center of each system, a dimple caused by the vibrations of the big bang, the mass of the suns original form was pulled towards it while it continued to increase in size (as smaller object would be pulled faster and would crash into it more frequently the close it got the the gravity well.

Once the pivotel gravitational balance point is reached the sun erupts in fission and starts spinning around, like a basketball rolling round the edge of a hoop. This stops the movement of the other masses to a large degree (hence solar system with planets form). Dark matter is massless, so it doesnt blank out the light as we think it does, it bends it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 01:36:53 2011 No.3927343 >>3927339 And that claim cannot be made, hence c2. Energy does not allways equal the constant speed of light, and to say so is idiocy, therefore the formula cannot be applied to dark matter.

>>	Josef crossed the Atlantic !!nUf2NflSAyw Thu Oct 20 01:38:53 2011 No.3927349 >>3927343 But light is energy, and energy is vibrations!

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 01:41:53 2011 No.3927356

>>3927349
light is one form of energy, so the equation is meaningless to all other types.

The equation lays out the fastest speed of light, but once you remove mass, it isnt light anymore, there is no more constant.

And when you take that into consideration it becomes plainly obvious why we cant view dark matter, and why light can travel through it without any interaction.

>>	Josef crossed the Atlantic !!nUf2NflSAyw Thu Oct 20 01:43:53 2011 No.3927367 >>3927356 But the +++- metric is meromorphic to the n-manifold, therefore dark matter has to interact electroweak

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 01:47:53 2011 No.3927375 >>3927367 Dude, how often do you deal with this as a physicist? No regular Joe's have any idea what's going on with molecular bio, they're too busy coming to terms with evolution. Looks like I dodged a bullet.

>>	Josef crossed the Atlantic !!nUf2NflSAyw Thu Oct 20 01:49:53 2011 No.3927380 >>3927375 Dude, how often do you deal with this as a physicist? "This"? I don't understand the question.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 01:50:53 2011 No.3927382 >>3927367 You're mixing light up with electromagnetism. Light would only behave this way inside a gravityless vacuum spinning at half the speed of C^2 (as a function of the nearest relevant electromagnetic field. I hope that clears that up Einsteins.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 01:51:53 2011 No.3927386 >>3927380 "But, you're all wrong. You see, light is like a vacuum cleaner, alright? Just add a zero to this equation here, and BAM! General relativity is false, so my theory is right...etc"

>>	Josef crossed the Atlantic !!nUf2NflSAyw Thu Oct 20 01:51:53 2011 No.3927387 >>3927382 But how does that account for that the polarization tensor is antihermitian, at least on the flat region of parameter space?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 01:59:53 2011 No.3927405 >>3927387 Fuck... I didn't think about that. I-I just don't know...

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 01:59:53 2011 No.3927406

>>3927367
Which is covered by my model. think of dark flows as a trillion trillion trillion trillion etc particles being ripped apart and shot out from black holes, the particles would collide (rarely) with normal matter, but since they arnt just singular ekectrons and not a whole atom, billions will pass through every source of matter for only a couple of collisions.

This means that the matter in the universe has been slowly bombarded, increasing its speed gradually, as mroe dark matter came to exist the effect increased. and it also means our calculations for the age of the universe are likely to be incorrect, because of this interaction and this acceleration caused by dark flow collisions with normal matter.

we measure this age using the distance of light travelling from masses in a far ago time, since all objects would have moved at a different rate than expected, the measurements would need to reflect this.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 02:11:53 2011 No.3927440 >>3927406 One more note, the idea of signal noise being generated by the big bang doesnt sit well with me, Im tempted to say its the direct experimental proof of dark flows.

>>	Josef crossed the Atlantic !!nUf2NflSAyw Thu Oct 20 02:11:53 2011 No.3927443 My horribly boring movie came to an end, I'm out, sorry. Was nice talking to you guys.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 02:14:53 2011 No.3927455 >>3927443 Thanks, hope ive given you an idea or two.

>>	Josef crossed the Atlantic !!nUf2NflSAyw Thu Oct 20 02:19:53 2011 No.3927479 >>3927455 ;-)

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 03:08:53 2011 No.3927593 Without math or experiment this is basically philosophy and a waste of time.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 03:12:53 2011 No.3927602

>>3927214

I was reading not laughing until this:
> Massless particles can travel faster than light, dark matter is literally shot back through time, we cant view it because it exists outside of our space time and is travelling in an opposite direction.

On a serious side, how would your form of dark matter be able to gravitate, like it apparently does in the established models, if it doesn't have mass?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 03:15:53 2011 No.3927606 >>3927300 Nice trolling you got going there, sir. > he failed to see the possibility of massless particles, which completly throw out his relativity formula You are aware of light, aren't you?

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 03:17:53 2011 No.3927613

>>3927602
The established models are incorrect, i think the hadron collider proved that didnt it. All the textbooks are in need of a rewrite, but before that can happen science needs to reinvestigate all of its theories to see if they are affected.

as for how they gravitate, that is a complex question, the simple answer is they dont, particles removed of mass would simply fly off in the direction they were ejected from the black hole.

At least thats how I see the model, but they would still be affected by gravity in the same way light is.

But this doesnt mean that what we know now about the universe is completly incorrect, just that it is unfinished (anyone that thought physics was complete should be humilated and shot), we need to account for special particle events that go beyond the normal funcitoning universe.

ergo dark matter and black holes, the big mysteries.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 03:18:53 2011 No.3927614 Please more bullshit from tripfags and that stoner dude.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 03:21:53 2011 No.3927622

>>3927613

> The established models are incorrect
Of course they are. Still, they give us a great insight into how the universe works. I think you need to learn what "model" and "theory" mean, before saying such things.

> i think the hadron collider proved that didnt it
No, it didn't.

> the simple answer is they don
So your model is inconsistent with the current established models, which give great predictions of how the universe works. Since yours is completely different from that, it can't be accurate. Your dark matter would have to gravitate, or you'd have to make up for the missing mass in comparison with the Lambda-CDM model through some other mechanism.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 03:22:53 2011 No.3927624

>>3927606
yes I am, and light is cohesive and runs through time forwards, it is limited by its nature.

dark matter on the other hand is completly incohesive, electrons that are completly incapable of attaching to others around protons forming atoms.

there is a distinction im making, that dark matter are particles that have been ripped apart in such a a way that they cant reform, not light waves with are not composed of particles which were once solid matter.

Light has an upper limit of velocity, neurons can apparently travel faster, showing that light particles are somehow slowed by their construction.

individual particles of dark matter in my model, are the direct opposite of light particles.

Cant explain that any further, and im not trolling at all here.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 03:27:53 2011 No.3927627

>>3927622
my oh my
>universe works. Since yours is completely different from that, it can't be accurate. Your dark matter would have to gravitate, or you'd have to make up for the missing mass in comparison with the Lambda-CDM model through some other mechanism.

But this doesnt mean that what we know now about the universe is completly incorrect,

>No, it didn't.

Yes it did, it proved the speed of light is not the total story through the neurons speed, physicists are currently desperatly trying to fit any possible answer into the void, mine adds a new option.

You seem to think that gravity only affects mass, it also affects light.

>Of course they are. Still, they give us a great insight into how the universe works. I think you need to learn what "model" and "theory" mean, before saying such things.

Im saying that I have developed a theorhetical model, a model of theories which together explain how the universe formed and how it has reacted and changed over time.

I even mentioned it was a theorhetical model, sorry you didnt read that part.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 03:27:53 2011 No.3927629

>>3927624

> light is cohesive

What does that mean?

> runs through time forwards
In whose time? Remember, there are different times for different observers.

> Light has an upper limit of velocity

No, light always propagates at c.

>neurons can apparently travel faster

No.

> showing that light particles are somehow slowed by their construction.

The speed of light (which is actually a bad name for such an important constant) is a fundamental limit, not really related to the nature of light. It is the speed limit of every action. I think you don't get how fundamental this is.

> individual particles of dark matter in my model, are the direct opposite of light particles

What does opposite mean? Ususllay, in particle physics, one calls antiparticles the opposite particles. Light's antiparticle is light itself.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 03:31:53 2011 No.3927635

>>3927627

> But this doesnt mean that what we know now about the universe is completly incorrect,
Yeah, that's exactly what i said, while you claim:
> All the textbooks are in need of a rewrite, but before that can happen science needs to reinvestigate all of its theories to see if they are affected.

> Yes it did, it proved the speed of light is not the total story through the neurons speed
lrn2statistics. Do you know what significance means? They'd have to perform way more experiments before being able to say the outcome was inconclusive.

> You seem to think that gravity only affects mass, it also affects light.
What made you think so? Because i did not say anything like that at all.

> I even mentioned it was a theorhetical model, sorry you didnt read that part.
I did, but you didn't read this part:
> I think you need to learn what "model" and "theory" mean, before saying such things
I'm totally serious here. Your model is inconsistent with models that are known to work.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 03:31:53 2011 No.3927636

>>3927627
to clarify more simply.

The current models show how matter reacts under normal situations or specified examples, but is lacking information and needs progression.

My model adapts the current models to work under extreme conditions, and help to explain forces and matter which has remained a mystery.

What it does not do is negate all the functional provable theories we have, it simply accepts the notion they arnt the complete story and tries to further the entire model to include unkowns which are as yet unaccounted for.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 03:33:53 2011 No.3927640

>>3927636

> The current models show how matter reacts under normal situations or specified examples, but is lacking information and needs progression.
I know, that's what I said.

> My model adapts the current models
No, it doesn't, as I have shown before.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 03:33:53 2011 No.3927641 >>3927627 >I have developed a theorhetical model By which you mean a model with no relation to reality whatsoever?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 03:33:53 2011 No.3927642 >>3927641 Yes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 03:34:53 2011 No.3927644 File: 13 KB, 240x240, blastster.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ITT: "Astrophysicists" not understanding units analysis

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 03:37:53 2011 No.3927649

>>3927635
just gona save some time and point to the answer
>>3927636

It is significant enough to have been tested 50,000 times, its significant enough to have been reproduced, and strange enough that a further experiment set to try and prove it came back negative, yes I am aware, and my model accounts for this under the normal models currently used.

That the neurons being measured from another system werent privvy to the precise events that cause them to change their basic nature and come under my model.

>What made you think so? Because i did not say anything like that at all.

Because you seem to think dark matter would be any different, particles are affected by gravity regardless of their mass.

>I'm totally serious here. Your model is inconsistent with models that are known to work.
your models are known to work, under a certain set of circumstances, mine work under very different circumstances, they are not mutually incompatible, they are complimentary.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 03:43:53 2011 No.3927659

>>3927649

> just gona save some time and point to the answer
That doesn't answer anything, as said.

> its significant enough to have been reproduced
wat
Source.

> Because you seem to think dark matter would be any different, particles are affected by gravity regardless of their mass
That's not the point. In current models, dark matter necessarily does have mass, to account for specific phenomena that we observe. Since your model completely negglects that, it can't be right. Also, it is false that your model incorporates current models, since your dark matter particles don't have mass.

> they are complimentary.
Nope. As explained, your model would have to include current models as a special case, which it does not, as said before.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 03:51:53 2011 No.3927673

>>3927641
It is based in reality, and im not going to answer such tripe anymore, come back when you want to be more than a self important theist.

>>3927640
You have shown nothing at all actually, youve tried to cement your opinion on EINSTEIN WAS WRITE FUCK ANYONE THAT DISAGREES WITH THE CURRENT MODEL. almost theistic belief im seeing from you so called scientists," how dare you challenge my beliefs"

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 03:52:53 2011 No.3927677

>>3927629
>What does that mean?
it means light particles can work together, connect to other light particles wheras dark matter cannot because of the process involved during black hole compression. I thought that much was obvious.

Light moves generally through linear time unless affected by other forces.

>No, light always propagates at c.
which is its maximum velocity....is that hard to understand.

>no
yes.

>The speed of light (which is actually a bad name for such an important constant) is a fundamental limit, not really related to the nature of light. It is the speed limit of every action. I think you don't get how fundamental this is.

Its not the upper limit, which has been shown in unproven experiments, just because you havnt read it in your textbook 20 years ago as established fact does not mean it cannot be used to apparently help prove string theory (the current theories being used) so why not a new extended model for special matter reactions on a quantum level, if you disagree with the idea of developing a theorhetical model (and I shall explain theorhetical model here, in my use it is a series of theories combined into one complete model, I used my words precisley to describe the set of theories i am using, or is that too much for you to grasp), then really you should just leave because were allways going to be at opposites if you arnt willing to suspend disbelief.

>What does opposite mean? Ususllay, in particle physics, one calls antiparticles the opposite particles. Light's antiparticle is light itself.
lol no, lights antiparticle is darkness, sorry there have probably been other posts and I dont see any point in telling you that DARKMATTER is the opposite of NORMAL MATTER, ANTI FUCKING MATTER, without mass, the particles act like light but travel faster and cannot recombine into an atom.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 03:56:53 2011 No.3927687

>>3927673

> You have shown nothing at all actually, youve tried to cement your opinion on EINSTEIN WAS WRITE FUCK ANYONE THAT DISAGREES WITH THE CURRENT MODEL
Stop patronising, that is not what I'm saying at all.

Current models NEED dark matter that has mass, your model doesn't contain dark matter with mass. Simple as that. This has nothing to do with Einstein.

> " how dare you challenge my beliefs"
That's actually exactly what you are doing right here.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 03:59:53 2011 No.3927693 OP, if you believe that you have a serious idea here, go learn math and prove it that way. What else do you have to do?

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 04:02:53 2011 No.3927697
File: 19 KB, 350x392, 1262081569378.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3927677
>lol no, lights antiparticle is darkness, sorry there have probably been other posts and I dont see any point in telling you that DARKMATTER is the opposite of NORMAL MATTER, ANTI FUCKING MATTER, without mass, the particles act like light but travel faster and cannot recombine into an atom.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 04:02:53 2011 No.3927698

>>3927659
ok ill take this slowly, glacial in fact
here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b016bys2/Faster_Than_the_Speed_of_Light/

>That doesn't answer anything, as said.
It explains quite simply that under normal circumstnaces we would observe the results we have observed and would naturally lead to the current existing model of how the universe formed and changes.

My model adds to this by including extra events that are unnacounted for, it means we have to rewrite the textbooks and check everything, because at the very least relativity is being called into question, and once that happens a hell of a lot of physics has to go under the microsope to see whether these new areas of interest affect them.

It could revolutionise physics, or it could simply take what we have and add to it, more likely is that some of the current model will have to be expanded/altered with a new perspective added.

Hence what I am doing, hell Most of my theory is actually based on the current model.

>That's not the point. In current models, dark matter necessarily does have mass, to account for specific phenomena that we observe. Since your model completely negglects that, it can't be right. Also, it is false that your model incorporates current models, since your dark matter particles don't have mass.

misnomer time, atoms have mass because electrons and protons form in specific ways, if you removed the ability for those particles to form into atoms, you remove their mass.

They are as a whole, a mass of "destroyed" particles, to use a phrase to explain it, the black hole twists and deforms them beyond recombination.

So yes they have the exact same mass as a whole (dark flow) but as individual particles they are massless and free to move much faster than any other particle.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 04:03:53 2011 No.3927701

>>3927677

> it means light particles can work together
And what does that mean now?

> Light moves generally through linear time unless affected by other forces.
Woah, what? Linear time? In a non-euclidean model involving time as a non-independent parameter?

> yes.
Prove it or shut up. Thousands of experiments have shown it (and that includes your statement) to be wrong.

> Its not the upper limit, which has been shown in unproven experiments
wut? Dude, what are unproven experiments? Speed of light IS definitely the upper limit for anything that can transmit information. This has never been shown to be wrong. For other "things", this limit does not apply of course, as for example galaxies outside the visible universe move away from us faster than with lightspeed.
Give an example of an experiment or shut up. Really. You're embarassing yourself with such nonsense.

> string theory (the current theories being used)
Huh, for a moment there i thought you weren't trolling. String theory isn't used at all. It is not a theory, it's a hypothesis.

> so why not a new extended model for special matter reactions on a quantum level, if you disagree with the idea of developing a theorhetical model (and I shall explain theorhetical model here, in my use it is a series of theories combined into one complete model, I used my words precisley to describe the set of theories i am using, or is that too much for you to grasp), then really you should just leave because were allways going to be at opposites if you arnt willing to suspend disbelief.
Derp. have you tried reading what I write? I said the goddamn exact same thing. Current models aren't complete, they need to be completed. Got that now?

> lights antiparticle is darkness

Ahhh shit

7.5/10

Really, for a moment I thought you were just mislead, but that is too fucking stupid.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 04:04:53 2011 No.3927705 >>3927698 > here: www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b016bys2/Faster_Than_the_Speed_of_Light/ Only available in the UK. Only talks about the neutrino experiment. Got any reliable source?

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 04:06:53 2011 No.3927710

>>3927698

Please, learn some relativity before saying these stupid as fuck things. I beg you. At least learn what the word "theory" means.

> atoms have mass because electrons and protons form in specific ways, if you removed the ability for those particles to form into atoms, you remove their mass.

No, no , nononono. Uh, you're giving me headaches now.
Dark matter is NOT normal matter or antimatter or protons or anything we know. Couldn't you at least have read the wiki article about dark matter?

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 04:07:53 2011 No.3927712

>>3927687
>That's actually exactly what you are doing right here.
hence the quoatation marks, it was me imitating how you sound to me right now.

>Current models NEED dark matter that has mass, your model doesn't contain dark matter with mass. Simple as that. This has nothing to do with Einstein.
I have actually answered that.

A black hole rips matter aparts into its peices, energy in the form of radiation is emitted, then whatever is left is mass removed from energy compresed down to a density where its fundamental structure is warped.

The totality of mass is never lost, the particles which make the mass are simply ripped to shreds and sent flying off in whatever direction they leave the black hole.

Energy cant be destroyed only changed, it follows that matter is the same.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 04:13:53 2011 No.3927722

>>3927698

> massless and free to move much faster than any other particle.

Math time. So, let's take the relativistic energy formula (1d, to keep it simple enough, hopefully):

E = \frac{mc^2}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}} - mc^2[/spoiler]

If we turn things around a bit, we get:

\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}} = \frac{mc^2}{E-mc^2}[/spoiler]
\frac{v^2}{c^2} = -\frac{mc^2}{E-mc^2}^2+1[/spoiler]
v^2 = -\frac{mc^4}{E-mc^2}^2+c^2[/spoiler]

Now let's see what happens if we set m=0, to see what speed your massless particles can achieve:

v^2 = -\frac{0 c^4}{E- 0 c^2}^2+c^2[/spoiler]

v^2 = c^2[/spoiler]

v = c[/spoiler]

HURRRRRRR

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 04:15:53 2011 No.3927724

>>3927712

> hence the quoatation marks, it was me imitating how you sound to me right now.

Nah. That's how you sounded right from the beginning of our conversation. Nice try though.

> I have actually answered that.
No you haven't. Your reply was "Hurrr, you always say Einstein is right because it says so in textbooks".

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 04:16:53 2011 No.3927727 >>3927722 That has to be a plus in the denominator, like <span class="math">\frac{mc^2}{E+mc^2}[/spoiler] The result is the same though.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 04:20:53 2011 No.3927737

>>3927701
you need to go read up on science a little, it has been proven that some particles can travel faster than the speed of light through, and the word I should have used is developmental experiments, in that the experiments are continuing right now to prove the matter one way or the other.

The speed of light was the measuring stick for how fast things could travel, and why time travel wasnt possible, and so many experiments are based on it that have no ability to take account of special circumstances that its really unbelievable you wouldnt have heard.

Or am I wrong in the belief that physics states massles particles can move faster than lightspeed, because that seems to be what your argueing here.

My model simply takes that and applies it to dark matter, and tries to explain dark matter, it doesnt rip apart the speed of light itself, just the idea that light is the fastest moving thing, which leads directly onto "if you can go faster than light, you can travel back in time, which is directly why we havnt found a way to measure dark matter".

>Huh, for a moment there i thought you weren't trolling. String theory isn't used at all. It is not a theory, it's a hypothesis.
its a hypothesis being given new life by the faster than light experiment, again are you slow?
>Derp. have you tried reading what I write? I said the goddamn exact same thing. Current models aren't complete, they need to be completed. Got that now?

Yes and as I have been fucking saying, that completeness is what Im trying to work towards, seriously dude take a second and think about it.

>Ahhh shit

>7.5/10

>Really, for a moment I thought you were just mislead, but that is too fucking stupid.

It was a simple answer to a moronic question

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 04:23:53 2011 No.3927742

>>3927710
I have and I disagree with it entirely, I think we have been creating multiple mysteries to explain the same set of events, I do know exactly what I am describing here, though I am limited in how I can express it to you, having not spent 20 years in a lab working on it.

If anything its your understanding of the ideas im presenting which is lacking here, and that fault lies with my lack of ability to demonstrate through experiment.

>>3927705
urgh somewhere, ill go looking once ive finished having to post fucking 10 mins worth of text each time i refresh.

>>3927722
Current mathematical formula based on incomplete data proves nothing, and doesnt mean that the formula couldnt be adapted to include a more developed model, and doesnt negate their worth either.

Im not going round in cicles again here, if I had enough money time and resources id fucking do it, and i wouldnt be talking about my theories on a board full of trolls, i really dont like coming to 4chan.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 04:28:53 2011 No.3927747

>>3927737

> you need to go read up on science a little
Everybody needs to, especially you. Pop-sci won't work though.

> it has been proven that some particles can travel faster than the speed of light
Source or shut the fuck up.

> Or am I wrong in the belief that physics states massles particles can move faster than lightspeed,
Yes, you are. massless particle constantly move at the speed of light. Exactly the speed of light, not faster or slower. Neutrinos are not massless, by the way.

> "if you can go faster than light, you can travel back in time, which is directly why we havnt found a way to measure dark matter".
That doesn't make any sense.

>its a hypothesis being given new life by the faster than light experiment
Bullshit.

> that completeness is what Im trying to work towards
In that case, yourmodel would have to include current models as special cases, which it does not obviously, as i said before. So you're wrong.

> It was a simple answer to a moronic question
Reread the sentence you had written and tell me you really think like that? Oh wow, why am i even replying?

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 04:31:53 2011 No.3927750

>>3927724
you have a fair point, and I accept I have been fighting from a corner, but I dont have the math or the proof, I have a theory, and because i have a theory with no math or proof I came here to talk about it, and instead of getting people interested in actually challenging themselves to try and expand their possible theories of physics, i found people screaming no we wont even begin to consider anything unless it was proven by a phd 20 years ago, its sad really.

You people are about as willing to discuss the notion of fixing what you admit is a flawed incomplete model as a christian is about how satan may have been wronged by god and is in fact our saviour, its rediculous that instead of trying to analyse the concept and take it forward, you have thrown the rattle out of the pram, I came here hoping you would see an incomplete theory in its begininning, be intrigued by its possibility or other possibilites like it and try to take it forward.

When that didnt happen I became defensive and angry so I apologise.

I did however once again repeat the answer for you, how massless particles can as a whole group contain a mass that isnt apparent when looking at the singular.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 04:31:53 2011 No.3927751

>>3927742

> have and I disagree with it entirely
Why? Because every experiment performed EVER supported it?

> Current mathematical formula based on incomplete data proves nothing, and doesnt mean that the formula couldnt be adapted to include a more developed model, and doesnt negate their worth either.
Dude, READ. Your model HAS to incorporate these ideas. Otherwise your "I want completion and current models aren't wrong, just incomplete" is senseless. You're fighting windmills. It doesn't make any sense if you don't accept criticism and doN't think about your model again.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 04:35:53 2011 No.3927757

>>3927750

> I have a theory
No, you have a hypothesis.

> I came here to talk about it
But you're just defending it pontlessly. We've pointed out many major flaws and you don't listen to that at all.

> i found people screaming no we wont even begin to consider anything unless it was proven by a phd 20 years ago
That's not what happened here. In fact, you are the one disbelieving everything that has been shown to work and correctly compute results.

> You people are about as willing to discuss the notion of fixing
Again, you are the one not wanting to change anything.

> as a christian is about how satan may have been wronged by god and is in fact our saviour
Oh boy 8/10 though i lol'd.

> instead of trying to analyse the concept
We have analysed it, we pointed out the flaws, you disrespect our work on this and you do not rethink anything.

> I did however once again repeat the answer for you, how massless particles can as a whole group contain a mass that isnt apparent when looking at the singular
But that wasn't what I was asking.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 04:36:53 2011 No.3927759

>>3927747
My model does exactly this :
>In that case, yourmodel would have to include current models as special cases, which it does not obviously, as i said before. So you're wrong.

That is exactly what I have been telling you for 15 posts now, its not a new model, its the old model with new addtional special cases, which may or may not affect the entire model under cirtum circumstances and therefore require a rethink of certain theories and models, to either add or replace them.

The model I am working from, the model I based my new model on is the current model, advanced onwards to include an explanation of black holes and their possible relationship to dark matter.

Im going to leave the whole time travel bit caus thats not even important, its a side area of interest that i thought about as a possible explanation for the big bang itself, but I got ahead of myself a little and just threw it in for fun, you know that stuff people do when they dont want the headache I have right now.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 04:40:53 2011 No.3927767

>>3927757
I answered , or tried to answer your flaws, but when you question my theory based on incomplete theories which fail to take account of the new model of dark matter and its function (possible) it creates the theistic belief barrier.

Like I said, dark matter as a whole would contain mass, dark matter particles would be massless, I dont even think they could be described as electrons or protons anymore, but rather just twisted particles of no use, devoid of energy and incapable of reflecting light.

I tried but when someone says your theory is flawed because there is already a flawed theory in place that seems to work, how do you answer.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 04:40:53 2011 No.3927768

>>3927759

> its not a new model, its the old model with new addtional special cases
No it's not. damn, why don't you read what I write?
Current models say: Dark matter needs mass
You model says: Dark matter doesn't have mass
Contradiction -> You're wrong.

You do not even accept relativistic formulae to show obvious disagreements with current models. That's just retarded.

By the way, reread this:

> > Or am I wrong in the belief that physics states massles particles can move faster than lightspeed,
> Yes, you are. massless particle constantly move at the speed of light. Exactly the speed of light, not faster or slower. Neutrinos are not massless, by the way.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 04:41:53 2011 No.3927770 >>3927767 You said dark matter is incohesive, dark matter does not interact. How can dark matter particles in your model clot together?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 04:42:53 2011 No.3927772 Keep on truckin', Luke Malloch.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 04:44:53 2011 No.3927777 What's the difference between Max Factor and OP? Max Factor has models that work.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 04:46:53 2011 No.3927782 >>3927777 I lol'd

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 04:53:53 2011 No.3927800

>>3927768

I have allready stated several times that the mass would not simply dissapear, that it was possible for dark matter particles singluar to have no mass, while dark matter plural does.

And I also put forward the idea that dark matter would on a minute scale act like a form of gravity as dark matter particles collided with the radiation from normal particles. like someone blowing gently on a flower made of 99% holes.

Those are just my ideas though, hard to prove without extended time, but the point is that I am not throwing out the current model, but adapting it for new information.
did read it, been busy with other stuff.

yes neutrinos do have mass, yes currently viewed massles particles do move at the speed of light, my theory is that rather than being cold slow particles, dark matter particles are in fact high speed heated particles, which shifts the focus of the current model and provides more than enough scope for experimentation, which I discussed very early on as something Ive been working through but am nowhere even close to an for how to test these things, maybe you can instantly think of ways of proving disproving theories you just had, but I cant.

>>3927770
Well, for a start, just like radiation flares, i would assume (and i mean it would need testing) that the dark matter would be ejected in clumps, probably at the same time, so while unbound and unable to connect to each other, they are affected by each others gravity as they flow in the same direction, as well as being affected by the gravitational forces around them.

Think of a steam, if you look at one particle its just a massles particle of dark matter travelling in a direction, if you look at a whole load of them they are what appears to be a river of particles travelling in the same direction, as a whole they have mass, as a singluar they dont.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 04:58:53 2011 No.3927813 >>3927777 whats the difference between you and a scientist? a scientist spends his time working, while you sit making jokes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 05:00:53 2011 No.3927816 >>3927813 You're just creating fuel for the fire, friend.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 05:01:53 2011 No.3927817 >>3927772 I'm guessing sarcasm, by now I am expecting it, but I sincerley cant understand your turn of phrase.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 05:01:53 2011 No.3927819 >>3927816 well i thought it would create a 5 min gap for me to do other things.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 05:01:53 2011 No.3927820

>>3927800

> I have allready stated several times that the mass would not simply dissapear
And I have never in here stated that it diesappears. Learn to fucking read.

> And I also put forward the idea that dark matter would on a minute scale act like a form of gravity
Then they're not massless. There is no such thing as 99% masslessness.

> but the point is that I am not throwing out the current model, but adapting it for new information.
You ARE in fact throwing out current models, as has been shown several times before (not accepting relativity, massless dark matter (matter always has a mass by the way, per definition)).

> so while unbound and unable to connect to each other, they are affected by each others gravity
They don't gravitate if they're massless. Being affected by an outside force does not mean thy connect.

> Think of a steam
Ok.
> , if you look at one particle its just a massles particle of dark matter travelling in a direction
Steam contains dark matter? Cool.
> as a whole they have mass, as a singluar they dont.
Why?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 05:04:53 2011 No.3927823 >>3927813 What's the point of working when you will die after a while anyway? Better have a good time laughing. Not that science doesn't interrest me. That's why I'm here. To see what other people think.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 05:10:53 2011 No.3927836

>>3927820
>You ARE in fact throwing out current models, as has been shown several times before (not accepting relativity, massless dark matter (matter always has a mass by the way, per definition)).

that actually made me facepalm.

> Think of a steam
Ok.
> , if you look at one particle its just a massles particle of dark matter travelling in a direction
Steam contains dark matter? Cool.
> as a whole they have mass, as a singluar they dont.
Why?

#A steam of dark matter
#the force of the movement would act like gravity and appear as an object with mass
#still an adaptation of current models
#yes relativity does need to be expanded, not thrown out, it needs to take account of more factors than are currently take into account in order to deal with unexplained phenomena.
#as i see it:
matter enteres black hole
gets ripped to peices
gets thrown out again like a steam of broken particles
as a whole their force acts like gravity
as a singular they have a weak force
nothing is lost at all
everything part of the matter that went in comes out

that is the reasoning behind my statement, it doesnt negate relativity, or dark matter having a mass, it means that dark matter is like the burned ash version of a particle, all of its still there, but its transformed into different things, some of which are usefull, some of which was just energy, but instead of a fire on wood, its a black hole on matter.

Im trying to give you real world examples where I can to explain this, and this is the first time I have tried to accuratly explain these concepts or any other concept on physics outside of my own mind where I can visualise each process as it takes place and how they all relate together.

relativitity - special relativity - dark matter relativity

TheJokingGuy Thu Oct 20 05:13:53 2011 No.3927841

>Think of a steam, if you look at one particle its just a massles particle of dark matter travelling in a direction, if you look at a whole load of them they are what appears to be a river of particles travelling in the same direction, as a whole they have mass, as a singluar they dont.

Lol no. A steam particle... if the steam is made of water.. is just a water particle in gas form. And that does have mass.

Also I'd like to point out.
Particles = Mass
What you call massless particles = Energy

Near massless particles don't exist. It eighter has mass or it doesn't.

It is true though that the volume of an atom is 99% nothing and only 1% is actually something.

>>	TheJokingGuy Thu Oct 20 05:17:53 2011 No.3927849 >>3927836 Oh now I think I understand your thought. The matter the black hole sucks up gets spat out again but most of the gravitational energy gets left behind in the black hole... right?

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 05:18:53 2011 No.3927853

>>3927836

> that actually made me facepalm.
I hope that's because you finally realised how stupid it is to say your model incorporates other models when it actually completely contradicts them.

> #the force of the movement would act like gravity and appear as an object with mass
Not possible, since that motion only affects one direction. Not like gravity at all.

> #still an adaptation of current models
No. You did not adapt a single thing.

> it doesnt negate relativity
THen why don't you accept this piece of math work? >>3927722

> or dark matter having a mass
You still haven't explained how that "ingle particles are massless but a lot of them gravitates" bit. Since they're massless and don't interact according to you, nothing holds them together or sets them into a state of being bound.

> relativitity - special relativity - dark matter relativity
So I'm assuming you never heard anything about general relativity?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 05:19:53 2011 No.3927856 >>3927849 If that's the case, I retreat my statement. He did say that the dark matter gravitates, though.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 05:22:53 2011 No.3927866

>>3927823
I can appreciate that, but was it necessary to try and make another human being feel like shit for trying to think for himself instead of just listening to other people?

I make no bones about not being a mathematician, and my physics has a ceiling limit to it, I know quite a bit, but not enough, as this thread has evidenced.

But where I shine through is how i can visually conceive the universe within my mind, and how I study what i think are important factors in that universe so I can try and model the concepts visually in my mind, and if it doesnt make sense as a concept then the theory is flawed.

Black holes are literally that flaw that I latched onto, Ive obsessed about how they function and what their purpose is and actually happens to be the actual reason i began to study physics to begin with, they, unlike allot of other things, do not work as a visual concept in my mind, not they way they are currently described, so i began to search for answer.

When I learned that a neutrino (and sorry for using the word neuron earlier was confused and angry) had travelled faster than light (apparently, non concusive according to some) I began to think about dark matter, and i began to think about black holes again, and dark flows, and it seemed to be a startlingly simple answer.

scientists think dark matter particles are slow and cold even though they have never measured seen or acuratly described them, if you make them fast and hot it explains the function of a black hole, and so on and so on.

It is theory based on extending and adapting the current model to new information.

And yet I feel ive wasted my time telling people who simply makes jokes and tell me the allready shaky incomplete model cant be questioned unless you have spent 30 years proving mathematical formulas.

I mean christ you guys are supposed to be the experts, how can you expect me, one guy without a degree to do what you cant?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 05:24:53 2011 No.3927870 >>3927849 bingo

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 05:26:53 2011 No.3927873

>>3927866

> where I shine through is how i can visually conceive the universe within my mind, and how I study what i think are important factors in that universe so I can try and model the concepts visually in my mind, and if it doesnt make sense as a concept then the theory is flawed

Oh boy, how is that even possible in a reasonable way without _knowing_ anything about the universe, i.e. know a lot of physics?

I'm sorry to break it to you, but this is all just dreams and thought candy, since there's no substance to it.

If you say current models are shaky, can you tell us what exactly makes them shaky?

TheJokingGuy Thu Oct 20 05:27:53 2011 No.3927875

>>3927866

Yes I apologize for the rough joke, I kinda figured it wouldn't affect you since we're on 4chan and rough jokes are the standard here.

I do also have been thinking of lots of ideas about how the universe is put together, ever since I was a litle kid.

But my ideas are mostly too wild to be accepted and I have been shunned a couple of times good enough for me to stop trying here. Or at least until I can formulate it better.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 05:27:53 2011 No.3927876 >>3927870 That contradicts with >>3927800 > dark matter particles singluar to have no mass, while dark matter plural does So unless you miswrote a lot of stuff earlier, you seem to just be trying to make things less embarassing for you.

TheJokingGuy Thu Oct 20 05:32:53 2011 No.3927887

>>3927876

Not necisarily, as I understand it, most of the gravitational energy gets left behind, but not all.

Maybe in his idea, the grav force of a single dark matter particle is so low it, it can be disregarded.

Or maybe when dark particles interact with eachother, the leftover energy creates a new gravitational force.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 05:33:53 2011 No.3927888

>>3927853
>Not possible, since that motion only affects one direction. Not like gravity at all.
ok, so i can explain this, now I mentioned how the stream or flow of particles would come out of the black hole, what I didnt even try to describe is where the flow would go, I did think that gravity would affect dark matter as it travelled, and that peices of dark matter would colide with normal matter very rarely changing both, but it does pose a problem I have yet to answer, one i am still modelling under the assumption that these particles move together at a high speed.

Literally gravity is not the right word, but its the word that best fits the affect these dark flows would have due to their movement (as all particles show light or matter.

>No. You did not adapt a single thing.
ok im not continuing that arguement its pointless you clearly wont accept that everything I have concieved is based precisley on current models, sometimes expanding them, sometimes combinging theories, replacing them with a larger theory, and I dont quite know how to explain that to you, i dont think I have the time or the right words to do it.

>THen why don't you accept this piece of math work?
I accept it works, on what it was designed to work on, but that it doesnt cover the totaltiy of what is happening.

>So I'm assuming you never heard anything about general relativity?
yes I have, I was making a point, that one singular relativity formula doesnt expand to cover every circumstance, and that a new one should be considered to deal with dark matter.

It wouldnt replace relativity, since relativity deals with light and normal matter, it would sit next to it explaining what happens to this particular type of particle in this particular set of circumstances.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 05:35:53 2011 No.3927895 >>3927887 > Maybe in his idea, the grav force of a single dark matter particle is so low it, it can be disregarded. In that case, he lied. > Or maybe when dark particles interact with eachother But they don't, that's what he said at least.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 05:40:53 2011 No.3927902

>>3927888

> affect these dark flows would have due to their movement
wat

You don't make any sense, sorry. Being affected by gravity and gravitating are completely different things.

> ok im not continuing that arguement its pointless you clearly wont accept that everything I have concieved is based precisley on current models
If you have done so, why do you still not accetp the fact that relativity makes it clear that every massless particle constantly moves at the speed of light? Why do you still say dark matter is massless without showing a mechanism of how they can interact to form something else which has mass when they're massless? IF you had based your model on current models, thiese discrepancies wouldn't be there. You're a straight liar or really stupid if you still don't see this.

> I accept it works, on what it was designed to work on, but that it doesnt cover the totaltiy of what is happening.
It must also account for your theory, since you said you based your theory on relativity. Having something else would lead to contradictory results, which shouldn't be there, since you said you based your model on relativity.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 05:41:53 2011 No.3927903

>>3927873
The fact they arnt complete.

And yes I can visually model the universe in my head, almost like vr, I am gifted in that regard I am aware, from all the people telling me how much of my potential I wasted.

No I dont know the entirity of physics, I am still studying, but I did study it at university for a year (many years ago), and I do actively search for new scientific knowledge.

>>3927876
I have been trying, very hard to explain this as best I can and Im sorry I havnt.

I felt saying dark matter particles have gravity was a simpler way of explaining the idea, on reflection obviously what I should have said is something like:

Dark matter itself has no mass, but the byproducts of the creation of dark matter still leaves mass and gravity behind as it speeds off.

The mass (lack of better term) remains at or near the black hole, the dark matter shoots off like a flowing stream.

Is that what im trying to say here? at this point I dont even know if thats the right descripton because its an image in my head not words.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 05:43:53 2011 No.3927909

>>3927895
I actually state singular dark matter particles would have a weak affect, but that they travel together because they were ejected together.

That these singular particles MAY then colide with (on an energy level) with normal matter in the same way that gravity bends light.

No lieing simply me trying to explain it best i can.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 05:45:53 2011 No.3927914

>>3927903

> The fact they arnt complete.
That's not shaking them.

> Is that what im trying to say here? at this point I dont even know if thats the right descripton because its an image in my head not words.
If that was what you were actually trying to say, you failed hard. That could be possible and it's at least not directly contradicting current models, but you did say explicitly that a bunch of dark matter particles do have mass.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 05:46:53 2011 No.3927920

>>3927909

> they travel together because they were ejected together.
That doesn't mean they're interacting. Which means, they do not suddenly develop a mass or gravitational effect.

> colide with (on an energy level) with normal matter in the same way that gravity bends light.
gravity and collisions are no way near being the same thing. What have you been smoking?

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 05:52:53 2011 No.3927932

>>3927902
I believe firstly, that the direction of the dark flows could be directed by gravity of normal matter.
that secondly, they could, through quantum collisions affect normal matter on an almost unrecognisable level. one electron coming into contact with one dark matter particle wouldnt be an actually collision, the dark matter would pass right through, yet the gravity of the real particle would affect the dark matter and visa versa on a minute scale. Its quite difficult to explain this.

>If you have done so, why do you still not accetp the fact that relativity makes it clear that every massless particle constantly moves at the speed of light? Why do you still say dark matter is massless without showing a mechanism of how they can interact to form something else which has mass when they're massless? IF you had based your model on current models, thiese discrepancies wouldn't be there. You're a straight liar or really stupid if you still don't see this.

because while your current relativity deals with known massless particles, dark matter is an unknown massless particle and therefore is possible for it to act differently to the observed particles? is that hard?

>It must also account for your theory, since you said you based your theory on relativity. Having something else would lead to contradictory results, which shouldn't be there, since you said you based your model on relativity.

how often have you come across one formula which deals with wildly varying particles in varying circumstances and been completly 100% correct?

relativity needed special relativity to explain other events, why cant you accept that this forumula could be taken and adapted for use on a different kind of particle which displays very different characteristics to known particles.

TheJokingGuy Thu Oct 20 05:55:53 2011 No.3927939

Building up some of my own ideas now.

When matter enters black wholes, it gets compressed, ripped apart and shit etc etc.

Light can't escape black holes, matter obviously can't eighter, even time probably slows down the closer you get to a black hole.

So the only way out, (other than being splurted outside by the black hole itself after being transformed into pure energy), is to change into an alternate source of energy and then flow backwards in time. Since you can't escape something that has a grip on time itself.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 05:56:53 2011 No.3927941 >>3927932 >because while your current relativity deals with known massless particles relativity doesn't deal with types of particles, its a set of rules you need to ensure the universe is consistent with itself.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 05:56:53 2011 No.3927942

>>3927914
because they do, right before they black hole, then all of the components come out the otherside, dark matter, energy and whatevers left is what the mass was, it would be attached to dark matter itself, it would be seperate like other two parts.

I suck at explaining quite clearly :/

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 05:58:53 2011 No.3927948 File: 25 KB, 341x450, untitled.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3927214 NOPE Stop spouting bullshit.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 05:59:53 2011 No.3927951

>>3927932

> while your current relativity deals with known massless particles
No, it deals with ALL known particles. Just in case you didn't know, quantum mechanics and special relativity have been unified.

> dark matter is an unknown massless particle
This is unknown. It might be a known particle, it does definitely have mass though.

>how often have you come across one formula which deals with wildly varying particles in varying circumstances and been completly 100% correct?
Rather often actually. That formula is the greatest example i know of. Not a single false result.

By the way, there are pretty far developed theories out there, really based on current models that can explain everything we see without the necessity to assume dark matter.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 06:00:53 2011 No.3927957

>>3927941
a set of rules based on observable matter and light, which dark matter does not fall into.

It wouldnt stop you seeing light as it should act, it wouldnt do any of the wildly crazy shit you think im suggesting, relativity would remain in tact for light and energy and the observable universe in which those rules have been proven to hold true,

They would include new rules to deal with unobsevered particles and how they affect the universe while remaining consistant with the basics of all physical understanding.

I dont quite understand why you think it should, perhaps I overstated it slightly more likely ive just done a poor job of showing this too you.

If you create a set of rules based on what you can see and measure, do you really think those same rules will instantly apply to what you cant see or measure?

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 06:00:53 2011 No.3927958

>>3927939

> even time probably slows down the closer you get to a black hole.
If you observe someone who is close to a strong gravitational source, and you compared time intervals with him, his intervals would seem longer than yours.

> flow backwards in time
Not possible because of entropy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 06:02:53 2011 No.3927960 >>3927941 This is a great wording that I'm afraid I will steal for future purposes.

>>	sage sage Thu Oct 20 06:04:53 2011 No.3927965 File: 62 KB, 320x240, 8f2e0_ORIG-successful_troll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3927942 You also suck at science, physics, basic reasoning and logic. The only thing you seem to excell in is Trollin and nonsense.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 06:04:53 2011 No.3927966 >>3927957 > a set of rules based on observable matter and light, which dark matter does not fall into. That's not what he said. The universe includes dark matter. > wildly crazy shit you think im suggesting What makes you think we think like that?

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 06:06:53 2011 No.3927969

>>3927941
and the universe we observe and measure is matter and light particles, we havnt observed dark matter therefore cant apply these rules because we have no idea right now whether its consistent with the rules, contravenes them or etc etc.

Rules based on what we observe, cannot be taken to explain or defunct a theory which expands what we are observing.

>> dark matter is an unknown massless particle
This is unknown. It might be a known particle, it does definitely have mass though.

sorry you made a massive assumption there, that dark matter carries the mass, I dont believe it does, and whats more, every sun that goes super nova turns that small gravity well i mentioned at the very start of this thread into a new black hole, so the leftover mass of dark matter would exist in every system in every galaxy.

>>	TheJokingGuy Thu Oct 20 06:07:53 2011 No.3927970 File: 70 KB, 1280x720, bscap0011.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3927958 Ah crap, entropy...

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 06:07:53 2011 No.3927971 >>3927969 >every sun that goes super nova turns that small gravity well i mentioned at the very start of this thread into a new black hole No.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 06:08:53 2011 No.3927973 >>3927969 > and the universe we observe and measure is matter and light particles epicfacepalm.jpg please, leave this to the professionals.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 06:09:53 2011 No.3927976 >>3927969 >sorry you made a massive assumption there, that dark matter carries the mass, I dont believe it does The fact that dark matter is massive is the only reason we even postulated its existence.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 06:11:53 2011 No.3927981

>>3927969

> orry you made a massive assumption there,
zOmg.

Look. There are acertain phenomena that appear to be due to indetectable mass between galaxies. To give this mass a name, scientists called it dark matter. Therefore, mass and dark matter are forever connected.

Also, matter is defined to have mass. See:
>Matter is a general term for the substance of which all physical objects consist.[1][2] Typically, matter includes atoms and other particles which have mass. A common way of defining matter is as anything that has mass

etc. etc.

>>	TheJokingGuy Thu Oct 20 06:11:53 2011 No.3927982 > massive assumption, that dark matter carries mass. Very punny

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 06:12:53 2011 No.3927984 File: 71 KB, 470x700, 81921748.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3927214 Are you high? stupid? 15years old?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 06:12:53 2011 No.3927985 >>3927982 indeed.jpg

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 06:15:53 2011 No.3927992

>>3927966
Because he seems to assume that the new model of dark matter would somehow change the fundamental rules of how our universe acts.

try and follow me here, if we were able to discern a way of observing dark matter by now then relativity would have to explain it, if it couldnt then relativitiy would need to be expanded, again, in order to deal with these new observations.

All that is really known right now, is that is possible a type of matter is adding to the weight of galaxies, based on this relativity is consistant and thats great.

But it doesnt really answer anything, we are trying to describe a particle which has been observed, the fact it hasnt been observed means that either :

it doesnt exist
it is not being searched for in the right way

if you accept it is not being searched for in the right way because we havnt figured out enough about it to really even try to observe it (every failure at your feet science), then you have to accept that whatever effect dark matter has, it does not intefere in the current rules regarding relativity, and that its therfore likely that these particles must be thought of under a new set of rules.

Simply explaining dark matter wouldnt negate the normal model, it would add to it, and the current formulas would hold true for what we have observed about the universe thusfar, but there are perhaps areas of the universe that are affected and we are yet to understand how.

But over and over again all he says is "your model contradicts relativity" which is actually doesnt need to.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 06:17:53 2011 No.3927998 >>3927971 >every sun that creates a black hole would contain the leftover mass of dark matter particles. fixed for you.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 06:19:53 2011 No.3928004

>>3927981
>Typically,
also
>Look. There are acertain phenomena that appear to be due to indetectable mass between galaxies. To give this mass a name, scientists called it dark matter. Therefore, mass and dark matter are forever connected.
my model seperates dark matter particles from dark matter mass, thereby explaining everything seen and understood by observing the universe.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 06:20:53 2011 No.3928008 >>3927982 thank you sir, i didnt even realise.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 06:21:53 2011 No.3928010 >>3928004 >>3927992 Sorry, this is getting too stupid and boring at the same time. I'm out.

>>	TheJokingGuy Thu Oct 20 06:24:53 2011 No.3928016 Or maybe we are all wrong and christianity is right, and that the laws of physics can be changed at god's will. As he does laughingly because of how hard he trolls us.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 06:28:53 2011 No.3928031

>>3928010
christ:
matter goes into black hole and comes out as:

the consituant parts of matter:
Energy.
Mass.
Other possible byproducts of particles being ripped to shreds.

The energy would be massless super heated, super fast particles that flow like a river through space and time.

The mass + whatever would vent out slow and cold and clump in and around galaxies.

I thought we were well past this part, its a theorhetical model of what happens to matter going into black holes, what dark matter is and how it works while not disregarding the observable universe.

That is the fucking point, to find a theory which explains dark matter whilst not affecting relativity or the current models of the universe, it tries to combine several different concepts into one working model which does not negate physics, simply adds to it by explaining some shit.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 06:31:53 2011 No.3928037 >>3928031 Not that guy, but you can't just make up words and expect to have created a good theory. That's not how it works, what you say. the universe works not like you say.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 06:33:53 2011 No.3928041

>>3928031

> which does not negate physics

Your dark matter particles are faster than light, making them travel backwards in time, which would mean entropy would become larger and larger in the negative time direction, which is not observed, hence, contradicting our state of knowledge.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 06:39:53 2011 No.3928058

>>3928041
>which is not observed
oh so you mean those unobserved particles havnt been observed in entropy? color me shocked.

>>3928037
Which word do you believe is made up?
i know I misspelt constituant, but im guessing there is another word you struggle with.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 06:41:53 2011 No.3928066 >>3928058 Entropy is not related to some kind of particle. If there was some particle, observed or unobserved, it doesn't matter, we'd notice entropy going up backwards in time, or lowering forwards.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 06:42:53 2011 No.3928071 >>3928066 Ok, your going to need to either provide an explanation or ill go and find one, because what you are currently saying is not actually something im aware of.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 06:48:53 2011 No.3928086

>>3928071
jumped on wiki and now I get what you are saying, but it isnt at all airtight, exceptions are given left right and center (literally) and my main attack would be the uniformity clause.

>The Second Law of Thermodynamics allows for the entropy to remain the same regardless of the direction of time. If the entropy is constant in either direction of time, there would be no preferred direction. However, the entropy can only be a constant if the system is in the highest possible state of disorder, such as a gas that always was, and always will be, uniformly spread out in its container. The existence of a thermodynamic arrow of time implies that the system is highly ordered in one time direction only, which would by definition be the "past". Thus this law is about the boundary conditions rather than the equations of motion of our world.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 06:50:53 2011 No.3928090

>>3928086
If im reading this right. and if we accept dark matter is and allways was spread out uniformly, then entropy would be the same either direction.

Just an idea here but hasnt the sky at night allways been dark with twinkling stars (till big bang).

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 06:50:53 2011 No.3928092 That's great and potentially Nobel Prize winning, OP. Now describe it all mathematically and you'll change the face of physics!

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 06:54:53 2011 No.3928101 >>3928090 In your model, dark matter is created. So that's not compatible.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 06:56:53 2011 No.3928106

>>3928092
not sure if troll but meh if I can give an idea to the world which could eventually prove to be usefull then ive served my purpose as a human being, even if its an idea thats proven wrong, it answers a question and leaves less questions to answer.

I dont want a nobel prize, I dont even really know why I put my name to this thread because I dont care what happens to my ideas from here, ill continue to study and think and conceive regardless because I feel like its important to try and understand the universe you live in, and when there are questions left to answer, the questions should at least be asked.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 06:57:53 2011 No.3928110 >>3928106 How old are you? I'm guessing around 60.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:00:53 2011 No.3928119

>>3928101
Not exactly, but I do see your point, unless its taken as a complete timeless cycle of big bang creating matter from pure energy, then the matter being converted back to dark matter/energy via black holes, travelling back in time (not the mass just the energy) in order to start the big bang, then its a closed uniform system in which the energy allways exists in the same amount.

It more probable that dark matter does not travel through time, but its still a possibility if your willing to stretch thermodynamics to snapping point.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:01:53 2011 No.3928122 >>3928110 >60 mod(47) FTFY

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:03:53 2011 No.3928126

>>3928106
Basically you know you have nothing of value to contribute/are a lazy fuck and expect handouts. I hope, if anyone does the math and your hypothesis turns out right, your name is never mentioned in the history books.

Of course, you're a dumbfuck troll/don't know math/are 60 mod(47) years old.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:05:53 2011 No.3928131
File: 106 KB, 495x700, tumblr_lawk0yiWXG1qzwf14o1_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3927214
>strong knowledge in physics and astrophysics

Do you know general relativity and differential geometry, like actually how to solve problems in shit? Like with tensor calculus?

Do you know quantum field theory? basic lagragian and hamiltonian dynamics?

Basically do you actually know physics, can actually solve physics problems? or you just a pop-physics fan boy...WHO ACTUALLY HAS NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT?

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:05:53 2011 No.3928132

>>3928110
just in my thirties, I dont feel like serious scientific research is something I could simply jump into, I dont feel like I would even know where to begin at this point in my life, but ive been stuck with certain concepts for a long time.

I allways had a problem with the way einstien and hawking explained the universe, it felt incomplete so I continued to study from my early teenage years, I just did it all in secret in my own head.

As for my philosophy of life, well when you live in a shitstorm you tend to get very focused on what you think it is important to do in this life.

The idea of living a life without trying to understand how the universe works is abhorant to me, for the same reason I cant understand regular people not studying phycology or anatomy (both of which ive studied to some extent as well), how can you live a life not even understanding how your biology allows you to interpret the world.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:09:53 2011 No.3928139

>>3928126
lol i love how much sand ive managed to fit in your vagina really.

I actually have a career outside of science, so lazy? dont think so.

the rest of anything you say is sheer tripe so I wont adress it any further.

>>3928131
lold at your butthurt, whats wrong little boy, does the fact that someone with who treats science as a hobby and is still able to form his own theories make you jelous or are you just terminally retarded.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:13:53 2011 No.3928147 >>3928119 You get it wrong. You said dark matter is produced in your model. For the other argument to work, dark matter would have to be there forever and for always, not traveling backwards in time and not changing its state.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:16:53 2011 No.3928156 >>3928147 I also allowed for the distinction of dark matter and dark energy. black hole ---> matter ----> ripped the fuck up ---->dark energy + dark mass

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:17:53 2011 No.3928157
File: 126 KB, 561x370, the-more-you-know.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3928132
>>3928132

"Your ideas are laughable at best, fucking stupid at worst." - An actual physicist

You have the same problem many "pop-guys" have, you try to jump into "solving big problems", without knowing any basic physics at all.

Sure the "big problems" are interesting to talk about, and think about, but it is fucking ridicluous to assume they your level of thinking or understading about what we know of the universe is at any level where you can even be taken seriously.

You need to be able to solve the smaller problems, and have a great working knowledge of basic and semi-advanced physics concepts before you can actually even grasp the "big problems" in there entirety.

Its like you are trying to learn calculus, when you don't even know how to count. It is great that you have the desire to learn, and think, BUT YOU ARE GOING ABOUT IT WRONG. You should start small, and build your way up, that is the only way you will ever build any actual physics knowledge.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:17:53 2011 No.3928160 >>3928156 Yes, which basically means: No dark matter -> your cycle -> suddenly dark matter which wasn't there before Dark matter and dark energy aren't related.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:18:53 2011 No.3928162

>>3928139

Look, I don't know how to put this in a way that doesn't offend you, but I'll try.

The problem is your, to use the term loosely, 'theory', has a lot of contradictions with the standard model. There is no supporting evidence for it - be it mathematical calculations or physical observations, the very things that physics and science is built on.

It's all very well having a lovely theory that contradicts what we know built up in your head, but without a shred of evidence and very little going for it, it will be rejected in place of a model that has and can be verified hundreds of times.

Furthermore: No. They're not complimentary. What you're saying has contradictions both within itself and the standard model.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:19:53 2011 No.3928165

>>3928157
Im going about it as an interested human being, you are going about it like a cunt, assuming you are the physicist, id like to see your printed papers, or even the smallest amount of acceptance that you could be wrong, but hey, I at least accept my ideas are likely bullshit, can stephen hawking or you say the same.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:20:53 2011 No.3928167 File: 3 KB, 300x239, failed.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3928139 >doesn't know what a scientifc theory is You don't have a theory son, you also don't have a hypothesis, you have a load of horse shit.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:21:53 2011 No.3928169 >>3928160 no it means energy (explosion) -- my cycle leading to energy production explaining where the big bang came from. its a simple little idea but grossly wrong, and a throw away idea that isnt even necessary to the model.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:21:53 2011 No.3928171 >>3928165 >doesn't know anything about science >thinks scientists take theories as absolutes Yeah, you need to grow the fuck up little boy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:23:53 2011 No.3928177 >>3928171 This. To get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:26:53 2011 No.3928185

>>3928162
Ill state again, I know I dont have math or experiment to prove anything im saying, im not even saying the theory is complete, in fact there are many many things that have not yet been mentioned in this thread which i know to be as flaws.

Its a theory, a concept, wiki here :
The English word theory was derived from a technical term in Ancient Greek philosophy. The word theoria, θεωρία, meant "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and referring to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action.[

I am using the exact defiition of theory, model and concept, and have stated over and over its just a theory.

Its theories though, that lead to people actually researching, without a theory how can you prove the math unless your just plain lucky.

Since you guys are experts how about you take a step back, look at the idea and see if you can think of a more complimentary theory to the current scientific model while adapting these new ideas and see how far YOU get with it.

Just try, dont even bother to post, just sit there and try to take a new look at black holes and dark matter, think of the universe in a way noone has before, that is how scientific discovery begins isnt it.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:27:53 2011 No.3928189

>>3928167
The English word theory was derived from a technical term in Ancient Greek philosophy. The word theoria, θεωρία, meant "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and referring to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action.[

The English word theory was derived from a technical term in Ancient Greek philosophy. The word theoria, θεωρία, meant "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and referring to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action.[

The English word theory was derived from a technical term in Ancient Greek philosophy. The word theoria, θεωρία, meant "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and referring to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action.[

The English word theory was derived from a technical term in Ancient Greek philosophy. The word theoria, θεωρία, meant "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and referring to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action.[

THEORY YOU FUCKING MORON ITS WHAT THE WORD MEANS,

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:27:53 2011 No.3928190
File: 93 KB, 500x500, troll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3927214
>I am not a graduate

That is pretty obvious. Have you even read a physics book? You do know that all your ideas go against pretty much all the evidence we have taken right?

Were you on drugs when you wrote this garbage? Trolling?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:28:53 2011 No.3928191 >>3928185 > I am using the exact defiition of theory, model and concept, and have stated over and over its just a theory. That sentence is like dividing by 0.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:28:53 2011 No.3928195 >>3928189 Not in scientific context, retard: >>3928177

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:30:53 2011 No.3928198

>>3928171
>doesn't know anything about science
>thinks scientists take theories as absolutes
>Yeah, you need to grow the fuck up little boy.
look at this thread from the other posters :
>Lol the current model says your wrong so your wrong.
yeh you scientist guys sure dont think of theories as absolutes, but then i guess your only point is to attack things when you have no intelligent repsonse which could add to the debate.

>>3928177
same to you.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:32:53 2011 No.3928205
File: 7 KB, 240x149, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3928185
>>3928185
>>3928185
>doesn't even know there is a difference between the common notion of theory and a scientific theory

WOW, REALLY? OP IS REALLY THAT STUPID? FUCKING WOW!

Please just gtfo

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:33:53 2011 No.3928207

>>3928191
>>3928195
I speak this thing called english, maybe you heard of it, its where the words come from, so I can use them, apply them to my work, and its exactly what i fucking said it is,

A THEORHETICAL MODEL, or let me exchange words for your retarded little minds

A CONCEIVED SET OF NOTIONS OF THE UNIVERSE.

stop being a prick and pointing out what you allready know and what ive allready pointed out.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:34:53 2011 No.3928210

>>3928198

> look at this thread from the other posters :
>>Lol the current model says your wrong so your wrong.

Bullshit. They were saying that evidence proves you wrong and our models right.

> same to you.

Go read it, fag. Do it. Boy are you going to feel stupid when you do that.
This is of course assuming you understand the article and are capable of reading, which I'm not exactly sure of, to be honest.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:34:53 2011 No.3928211 File: 51 KB, 494x426, epicFAIL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3928198 The evidence says your wrong, you do understand what evidence is? or do you need help with that too?

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:35:53 2011 No.3928213

>>3928205
>knows there is a difference, the WORDS ARE THE FUCKING SAME YOU RETARD, if you read even 5 posts you would see how many times I go to length to say im not a mathmetician or phd, and that these are just THEORIES, i didnt fucking say SCIENTIFIC THEORY HERES MY MATH, I said heres my THEORY it has no math.

suck a cock before typing it might help with the assbugers you suffer.

>>	TheJokingGuy Thu Oct 20 07:36:53 2011 No.3928216 Alright, I'm back from lunch-break, what did I mi-- Ah name calling already.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:36:53 2011 No.3928217 >>3928210 no, they really werent, they struggled to understand my unscientific explanation and then realised what I was saying and slowly fucked off. You however stayed around for the bonus trolling round where I no longer give a fuck.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:36:53 2011 No.3928219

>>3928207

Listen retard, a THEORY is the highest form a model can be lifted to. What you have is a HYPOTHESIS. And judging by all those contradictions, it's a bad one.

To loosely quote an anon from a few days ago:

"OP:
> here is my preconceived notion of how things work, is there any data proving me right?
SCIENCE:
> Here is the data, can we model a hypothesis that explains the evidence?
"

You fail in many ways.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:37:53 2011 No.3928221

>>3928213

You're posting on the science and mathematics board of 4chan. If you expect "theory" to not represent "scientific theory", then I would suggest that it may be you that actually has aspergers.

Go with "hypothesis" instead. Even that might be a tad too rigorous for what you're suggesting.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:37:53 2011 No.3928222 >>3928213 What you have is called a hypothesis. Don't call it theory if it ain't one.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:38:53 2011 No.3928223 >>3928211 Provide me the absolute evidence of dark matters creation, observation, measurement, and properties PROVEN and ill accept your evidence. If you say relativity at all in the phrase then I wont read it because I have explained that to death.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:38:53 2011 No.3928224 >>3928216 Germanfag suspected.

sage sage Thu Oct 20 07:38:53 2011 No.3928226
File: 44 KB, 454x432, obvious-troll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3927214
>Make outrageous claims about the universe

>No evidence to support such claims

>No theory that ties in to evidence to support such claims

>No theory that ties into evidence that supports known working theories

>refused to accept evidence that is contradictory to his claims

You are not doing science OP, you are doing religion. Religion does not belong in /sci/. Saged and reported. Enjoy your ban religious faggot.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:39:53 2011 No.3928230 >>3928217 > no, they really werent, they struggled to understand my unscientific explanation and then realised what I was saying and slowly fucked off. You seriously believe that shit? I just arrived here by the way.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:40:53 2011 No.3928231 >>3928219 listen dumbass, Im not a scientist so I dont form hypothesis or scientific theory, I FORM THEORIES, by every letter of the english language it is THE MOST ACCURATE description of what I have done savy?

>>	TheJokingGuy Thu Oct 20 07:40:53 2011 No.3928234 >>3928224 I could be from all over Europe... I'm a bigger mystery than black holes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:41:53 2011 No.3928238 >>3928223 This is nto related to dark matter at all, stupid. You get very fundamental ideas very wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:41:53 2011 No.3928240 >>3928226 but he said he built his theory on existing theories! it must be good! that supports his theory!

>>	SHUT THE FUCK UP Thu Oct 20 07:42:53 2011 No.3928242 File: 110 KB, 320x480, 01e8bee6fb3dfe147857728210073413.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3927214 Anti-matter is matter traveling backwards in time OP. PICK UP A GODDAMM PHYSICS BOOK DIPSHIT! We can see antimatter just fine.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:42:53 2011 No.3928245 Where does dark energy come from?

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:43:53 2011 No.3928246

>>3928221
lol at what you said, really you didnt read the thread at all, I dont like 4chan, I came here because I had a theory, not a scientific theory, a theory, the people who were at the start of this thread accepted that, you though, wow the retardation is strong.

I get it, you guys like seperating the word theory from hypothesis, truly its inspiring how you try and basterdise my language, but really, fuck you, I came here against my better judgement because I thought you guys might have some insights to add, that you would be capable of taking a "hyponthesis" and run with it to see where it lead.

Instead you have spent 10 minutes of my time argueing about the word theory.
gg

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:43:53 2011 No.3928248 My theory is that OP isn't trolling but just stupid and blinded into thinking he is somehow special and intelligent. Evidence is provided in text form in this thread. I get Nobel prize nao?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:43:53 2011 No.3928249 >>3928234 Oh boy you sure get me startled.

>>	sage sage Thu Oct 20 07:44:53 2011 No.3928250 File: 25 KB, 400x229, Do-not-feed-the-troll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3928231 saged and reported

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:44:53 2011 No.3928252 >>3928242 > Anti-matter is matter traveling backwards in time derp >in case you didn't get my comment, it means you're wrong.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:46:53 2011 No.3928254 >>3928246 You call your thoughts a theory, then say it is based on existing theories, so that comparison makes clear you didn't get what scientific theory means. You made the mistake, not us.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:48:53 2011 No.3928258 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_%28physics%29 What if dark energy is the reaction created by gravitational pull of stars, black holes, planets, etc.?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:48:53 2011 No.3928260 >>3928258 > what if didn't read further

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:49:53 2011 No.3928261 File: 20 KB, 400x447, corner_dumb_ass.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3928252 >Never read a book on particle physics >Never done any experiment reguarding particle physics >don't know how to google antimatter LMFAO

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:49:53 2011 No.3928262

>>3928230
we argued long and hard about relativity, long and fucking hard, before they realised I wasnt actually throwing it out at all, that my theory explained dark matter without destroying what we can prove about the universe.

There have also been side arguements about time travel which i conceeded very early was a throw away idea that wasnt necessary, but thought it would be interesting to follow.

Then it got stupid, Ive tried quite hard to explain my theory in several ways, and some were more understood than others.

At this point I cant even be bothered trying to continue explaining it, you can reread the thread of not, its your life to live.

I knew this idea wasnt that strong before I came here, but I thought it could develop into something better, something that truly explained shit.

You guys though, wow, up your own arses doesnt even begin to describe it.

"Omg your not a scientist how dare you come here and start throwing ideas around" fuck it after today ill be coming back often just to annoy you all.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:49:53 2011 No.3928265

>>3928246

I have read the thread. You come here with the standard understanding of the word "theory" and a half-assed hypothesis that doesn't fit any observations and contradicts something it claims to compliment. You then get upset when people correct your usage of the word "theory" on a scientific board, as it represents "scientific theory" to us which is something entirely different. You refuse to bend on this point, despite the fact that you are entering a circle of people using a field-specific lexicon and misusing some of the words within it.

You then get upset by people poking holes in something that already resembles swiss cheese, and revert to "But I don't have any mathematics, it's just a theory!", which, to us, attempts to put it on the same level as the theory of gravity or evolution, which is quite clearly is not.

You are quite simply wrong in every way, and every attempt to shout people down or make retarded ad hominem only serves to lower the general opinion of you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:51:53 2011 No.3928266 >>3928238 you didnt even read this thread did you, why would i listen to someone whos repeating what I knew before it was posted in this thread. oh right, your a jackass.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:51:53 2011 No.3928268

>>3928261

Get the fuck out retard. Hurrr Feynman diagrams.

The truth is, we cannot, per theory, tell apart antimatter and backwards traveling matter, but that does NOT mean antimatter IS matter traveling backwards in time.

We can just INTERPRET them like that. Upcoming evidence for CPT violation shows it will most likely not be sensible.

Who's looking dumb now?

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:52:53 2011 No.3928271
File: 32 KB, 517x307, Walter White.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3928262
>dark matter is literally shot back through time, we cant view it because it exists outside of our space time and is travelling in an opposite direction.

This is nonsensical and just fucking retarded. Please do some research on antiparticles, to aid your understanding, and shed light on your retardedness.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:53:53 2011 No.3928272

>>3928262

> we argued long and hard about relativity, long and fucking hard, before they realised I wasnt actually throwing it out at all, that my theory explained dark matter without destroying what we can prove about the universe.

Bullshit. You theory would have to obey at least that formula that one guy used to show massless particles always travel at c, or it is inconsistent with relativity. You lose.

> "Omg your not a scientist how dare you come here and start throwing ideas around" fuck it after today ill be coming back often just to annoy you all.

That's not true. You keep bragging about and defending this shit you call theory and close your eyes before hard facts like a little child. That's the reason, not you not being a scientist.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:54:53 2011 No.3928273

>>3928254
nope, again your mistake.

When I took established scientific theory, then formulated my own based on it, it became a theory, not a scientific one, but a theory based on other scientific theories.

I thought you guys were smarter than the average bear.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:54:53 2011 No.3928274 >>3928266 derp, so it really is name-calling now. Guess you're not 60 but really 13. Why don't you listen to what others say for a change?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:55:53 2011 No.3928276 >>3928258 I like this idea, bookmarked for later reading too, thank you for giving me somewhere to go with this, its basically all I wanted were new ways to think about the universe.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:56:53 2011 No.3928277 >>3928273 straw man, straw man everywhere. You used the word theory for your shit, and at the same time theory for scientific theories. Yup, your mistake. Deal with it.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:57:53 2011 No.3928278
File: 20 KB, 216x280, Walter_white_breaking_bad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3928268
a) believe in feynmans work, WHICH IS EXTREMELY EXPERIMENLLY ACCURATE, PREDICTIVE, AND FRUITFUL AS FUCK

b) believe some bullshit on /sci/ by a 30 year old with no college degree, who doesn't even know what a scientific theory or scientific hypothesis is

Which do you think is the better choice?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:58:53 2011 No.3928283 >>3928265 >hey you might want to use the word hypothesis instead of theory on this board would have worked, was it said that way, no, you all jumped on the cuntmobile so I am now beligerant and without the slightest care.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 07:59:53 2011 No.3928286

>>3928278

Where have I stated I distrust Feynman?

Wow, you really are retarded.

> he actually thinks antimatter is matter travelling backwards in time and this is not just a possible way of looking at things made possible by CPT-symmetry, which looks like it's violated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry#CPT_violation

You should start at least trying to understand what physicists do instead of just reading and memorising stuff.

24yo PhD candidate here by the way.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:00:53 2011 No.3928289 >>3928283 > cuntmobile lol

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:00:53 2011 No.3928291 >>3928283 Okay, well you have your answer as to why everyone did at any rate. Now if you'll kindly stop being an ass maybe we can go through the flaws in your hypothesis without you taking it as us pointing out the flaws of your character.

LUKE MALLOCH IS THE BIGGEST FAGGOT OF ALL TIME Thu Oct 20 08:02:53 2011 No.3928294
File: 39 KB, 600x500, troll-award2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3927214
>>3927214
>strong knowledge of physics and astrophysics
>doesn't even know what a scientific theory is

You will never will the Nobel OP, but I have another award for you

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:02:53 2011 No.3928295

>>3928271
Is something im allready doing but thanks for taking the time.

>>3928272
That is a contentious issue, but as for whether it fucks with relativity, it doesnt have to:

what science states: dark matter, is an unobserved mass that might exist and flow throught the universe creating acceleration.

what I state, dark matter could be created by the process that occurs in a black hole.

In its basic form that is all my theory really is, the rest of it is just general ideas I wanted to try and fit in.

Like i said you didnt read the entire thread.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:02:53 2011 No.3928296 >>3928278 So, can you provide a source in which Feynman claims that antimatter is in fact matter going backwards in time?

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:04:53 2011 No.3928299

>>3928274
because your not saying anything that changes anything at all, in fact most of what im hearing now is "its a theory" "stop being a child" "stop namecalling you retard" lalalalalala

As long as you guys are being pricks I may as well be one too.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:04:53 2011 No.3928301

>>3928295

> dark matter, is an unobserved mass that might exist and flow throught the universe creating acceleration.

Nope. We observe dark matter through gravitational interaction.

> what I state, dark matter could be created by the process that occurs in a black hole.

That's totally possible, but that's not all you said.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:05:53 2011 No.3928302 >>3928299 Where did anyone say that? Sir, I think you need to grow up.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:05:53 2011 No.3928303 >>3928277 because they are both theories to me, its not my fault you guys seperate the two out, and i find it a struggle to care to distinguish when they, apart from relevance to you, mean the same damn thing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:06:53 2011 No.3928304 >>3928278 That "get the fuck our retard" wasn't directed to you by the way. I failed at clicking post numbers.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:06:53 2011 No.3928305 File: 86 KB, 800x1216, text.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3928296 LITERALLY EVER BOOK ON PARTICLE PHYSICS EVER WRITTEN. It is one of the first topics they bring up. It ends up being fucking trivial.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:06:53 2011 No.3928306 >>3928303 zOmG you're laughable.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:08:53 2011 No.3928311 Josef, please don't troll the poor guy!

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:09:53 2011 No.3928313

>>3928305

Please stop posting bullshit. Thanks.

I have read several books on particle physics/qft by the way, including Peskin-Schroeder, also Weinberg (though not completely) and Muta. Nowhere did anyone state such thing. It is just a possible interpretation. Far from being real.

Have you ever thought about entropy? Particles flowing backwards in time would raise entropy in the wrong direction.

Damn those typical students.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:10:53 2011 No.3928317 >>3928313 >raise entropy in the wrong direction This is happening right now, it's called dark energy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:10:53 2011 No.3928318 >>3928317 bwahahahaha

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:11:53 2011 No.3928323

>>3928301
You havnt observed dark matter, but its effect.

In fact at its heart dark matter is a loosley coined term to explain something which scientist couldnt fucking explain.

"There should be more mass in these galaxies"
"well then there has to be matter there"
"maybe its invisible or dark"
"lets check if its proven by unseen gravitational forces"

then
"hmm maybe dark matter does exist, but if it does, how did it come to exist and how is it moving/affecting the universe"
"maybe black holes did it"

voila how this all began, like i said, took a theory made a new one.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:12:53 2011 No.3928324 >>3928286 >Doesn't understand CPT What you have posted does in no way, shape, or form contradict the fact that anti-particles are regular particles traveling backwards in time. What on earth gave you that silly idea?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:12:53 2011 No.3928325 >>3928323 > You havnt observed dark matter, but its effect. tru dat. Too lazy to type all that out.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:15:53 2011 No.3928331

>>3928325
my point is you havnt proven where dark matter comes from, and its something I have been thinking about, the conclusion I came to is that black holes would be a brilliantly logical source of dark matter, since black holes are well, the same color as dark matter, invisible, its a logical leap to make.

From there my mind keeps running into new possibilities, and I thought you guys would too.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:15:53 2011 No.3928332 >Ill state again, I know I dont have math or experiment to prove anything im saying you just stated that what you wrote is completely worthless

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:17:53 2011 No.3928334

>>3928324

Well,m what on earth gave you the silly idea that they are travelling backwards in time?

You made the positive claim, so you must motivate it.

The possible interpretation of antimatter as matter going backwards is due to the fact, that CPT is a symmetry transformation. take a particle, CP-transform it and you get it's antiparticle. T-transformation makes it "go backwards in time" (actually, it's just a process reversal but for us, this shall be the same). So if you T-transform a particle, you get the same result as a CP-transformation would get you. Therefore, instead of CP transforming a particle to get its anti-particle, you can also T-transform it, which will "inverse time" to get a "backwards travelling" antiparticle.

That's the fundament to this idea. CPT-symmetry.

Either way, if you see it or don't, no scientist in their right mind would claim that antiparticles are particles going backwards in time. It is just a possible interpretation after all, nothing more. It may help to understand certain situations better or easier, but it is not a tested fact.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:18:53 2011 No.3928335

>>3928332
To you, but someone might see what Im suggesting and think of it in a way that you guys can understand, which is apparently only in terms of pure math.

Thats all I expected from this, putting an idea out into the world while getting a chance to learn.

If I achieve either im a winner, and guess what entropy made me a winner regardless of what happens at this point of the thread.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:19:53 2011 No.3928338
File: 341 KB, 500x375, 1304376955947.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3928313
>entropy
>particle physics

Yeah, you have never read a particle physics book. I am calling bullshit on your claims of qualifications. Entropy is no way a first principle dumbfuck, it is something that is later derived via statistics and shit.

Entropy doesnt even enter the discussion when dealing with particle physics or quantum field theory (single/few interactions).

Entropy comes way later, once you have more stats.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:21:53 2011 No.3928341

>>3928334

Maybe this makes it clearer:

C, P and T are the charge Conjugation, Parity and "Time reversal" operations, f shall be our particle filed.

CPf means we CP-transformed that field, so it becomes its anti-particle.
Tf means, we T-transformed it, so it still is a particle, but traveling backwards in time.
CPT is a symmetry transformation, therefore:

CPTf = f

which can be reformed to

CPf = Tf

which means:

Antiparticle = Particle "going backwards in time". So if it weren't for CPT-symmetry, this interpretation wouldn't be possible.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:23:53 2011 No.3928343

>>3928338

Oh boy, are you stupid. Sure, in particle physics you usually don't deal with entropy, still, globally, it's fucking important and forbids such interpretations.

You still haven't provided a single source for someone claiming that antimatter IS matter going backwards in time. Until that happens, you lose anyway.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:23:53 2011 No.3928344 >>3928341 this antiparticle you speak of, how exactly are they formed, what is the process used to change a particle to anti?

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:24:53 2011 No.3928346
File: 119 KB, 800x600, FEYNMAN65.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3928334
>no scientist in their right mind would claim that antiparticles are particles going backwards in time

Feynman world like a word with you

The marjority of physicist at Cal-Tech would like a word with you

The majority of physicist at CERN would like a word with you

The majority of physicist at FNAL would like a word with you

The majority of physicist at BNAL would like a word with you

should I go on?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:25:53 2011 No.3928348 >>3928343 It is a derived law dipshit. Not first principle, meaning you can have cases WHERE YOU DONT FUCKING DERIVE IT.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:27:53 2011 No.3928349 >>3928346 Source or gtfo. Bringing up random names isn't gonna help. Now go explain why antimatter should be matter going backwards in time. Being able to rotate Feynman-diagrams isn't an explanation.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:28:53 2011 No.3928350 >>3928346 lol i guess you also think particles get more mass the faster they go, right?

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:30:53 2011 No.3928354

>>3928348

And? The fact that this law even exists for many-particle cases proves that particles are not going backwards in time, otherwise there would be cases in which entropy would get lower globally. I hope you know that is inconsistent with other laws.

Again, I am not talking about individual interactions.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:30:53 2011 No.3928355
File: 165 KB, 1299x472, sage-logo_7246.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Haven't been on /sci/ in a long time
>Not studying any of "natural science" but "liberal arts"
>Even I know OP is full of bullshit.
Please for the sake of the humanity, instead of toying with "astrophysics" get into philosophy and spread your bullshit there. Hey you might get important and the Allan Sokal will write a book rebuting your ideas...

TheJokingGuy Thu Oct 20 08:30:53 2011 No.3928356

>>3928344

Scientists believe that anti-particles and particles where created during the big bang, there was an even amount particles and anti-particles.

When these two collide with eachother, they release an increadible amount of energy, but the particle itself would dissappear.

The reason why particles survived the anti-particles is because, according to scientists, anti-particles and particles got seperated by black holes, where anti-particles where just within the event horizon and got sucked inside, whilst the particle survived.

And I believe it is possible to make capture anti-particles, there's even a video on youtube I think.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:30:53 2011 No.3928357
File: 325 KB, 1023x1440, 1319062058422.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3928343
Go to CERN
Go to R1
Ask random physicist

99% sure he will tell you that indeed an anti-particle is a particle going backwards in time.

O'wait, you don't have access to actual physicist doing actual fundemental research, do you? Too bad for you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:31:53 2011 No.3928358 >>3928355 try reading thoroughly before judging, i know its long, but man up if you want to state an opinion.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:32:53 2011 No.3928361

>>3928356

> The reason why particles survived the anti-particles is because, according to scientists, anti-particles and particles got seperated by black holes, where anti-particles where just within the event horizon and got sucked inside, whilst the particle survived.

Nope.

CP violation would have been the correct answer.

>>	TheJokingGuy Thu Oct 20 08:32:53 2011 No.3928362 >>3928356 >were just within... >possible to capture typos

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:32:53 2011 No.3928363 >>3928357 I have worked at CERN for some weeks. You still have neither provided a source nor a reason for why one might think like you. Therefore - you lose.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:33:53 2011 No.3928364 >>3928356 see now this is the explanation i knew for them but what they are describing is very different.

>>	TheJokingGuy Thu Oct 20 08:34:53 2011 No.3928367 >>3928361 ok, I was just typing the stuff I heard Stephen Hawkings said on a discovery channel episode.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:35:53 2011 No.3928368 >>3928367 No. he talked about hawking radiation, not about antimatter-matter imbalance.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:37:53 2011 No.3928374 >>3928357 > O'wait, you don't have access to actual physicist doing actual fundemental research, do you? Do you? 'cause your upset mood an inability to explain makes me think you're a trolling freshman.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:39:53 2011 No.3928380

>>3928364
Btw one of the hypothesis I came up with originally was based on the particle antiparticle thing.

That theory began along the lines of black holes creating anti particles which then travelled back in time to the big bang and exploding on combination, but the idea would require a critical mass effect, because otherwise the first particle that arrived would have caused the explosion, or in fact the first anti particle to come into existence would have destroyed everything.

Thats when dark matter came in, and my suspicion that dark matter and anti particles are in fact the same thing.

But hey Im happy with my "dark matter is formed by black hole" theory because I havnt heard anything which would negate that process as being a possible explanation for dark matter and the accelerating universe.

Now i feel like ive learnt nothing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:40:53 2011 No.3928381 Not sure if it's widely accepted, but the idea is that a positron-electron annihilation marks the point where the positron begins its journey backwards in time.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:42:53 2011 No.3928385

>>3928358
Okay, let's see:
>You propose your model.
>Other posters ask for mathematical proof, you say I'm no mathematician.
>You don't know that most of Physics is math only.
>Doesn't know the difference between aincent greek "Theory" and "Scientific Theory".
Protip: try epistemology, it might be more to your knowledge than astrophysics.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:42:53 2011 No.3928387
File: 15 KB, 220x275, 220px-Einstein_1921_portrait2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3928354
>I am not talking about individual reactions

THAT IS YOUR FUCKING PROBLEM, you are failing to grasp the whole framework, the individual parts and the whole.

Some particles traveling backwards in time, don't "globally" fuck up entropy kid. And you yourself admit entropy doent exists on the particle level.

YOU STILL CAN DERIVE THE SAME "GLOBAL ENTROPY" WITH SOME PARTICLES TRAVELING BACKWARDS IN TIME.

Analagously to how you define an tempeture within a region of space, ITS STATISTICAL. Do you understand statistics? The law of large numbers?

Do you understand why this is? is it not evident? (Hint: There are alot more particles then fucking antiparticles).

If you really dont understand this, I would advise you to start with some QFT lagragians, build your way up "scale" layer by layer, until you eventually get to the concept of entropy. BUT REMEMBER THE CONSTITUITES YOU ARE WORKING WITH.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:45:53 2011 No.3928398
File: 188 KB, 750x534, 1314445330165.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3928380
Please idenitify yourself in your posts by "OP" or "retard" or "troll" if you are OP. That way I can know to ignore you.

You were the least educated and knowledgeable in the thread, and I perfer talking to the others, who actual have something to contribute or discuss.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:48:53 2011 No.3928407

>>3928387

> Some particles traveling backwards in time, don't "globally" fuck up entropy kid

You said ALL anti-particles are particles traveling backwards. So...
Also, right now we would be bombarded by uncountable many particles flying backwards that were produced in the future. I am not talking about fluctuative effects, in which particles shortly go backwards in time, I'm talking about your statement that anti-particles = particles going backwards.
So yes, that would definitely be a problem.

> YOU STILL CAN DERIVE THE SAME "GLOBAL ENTROPY" WITH SOME PARTICLES TRAVELING BACKWARDS IN TIME.
Only for small enough bound systems.

How about tackling the real problem of you being unable to either provide a source or an explanation for why anti-particles are particles going backwards?

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:51:53 2011 No.3928414

>>3928385
Glad you took the time, I hope you had fun reading all that.

No im not physicist, or a mathematician, im actually a programmer who studied physics as a side subject then dropped it after the math became to much for my overworked brain to accept at the time, it was a huge mistake.

Funny thing is I dropped it to focus on my programming then got bored of programming and moved onto something else instead.

But that doesnt mean some of the theory didnt sink in, i could probably remember the a level formulas but v2=ut+at2 doesnt really help in this level of theory.

Furthermore, Ive only had this hypothesis for a couple week in which I work night shift, leaving me little time and effort to sit down and even attempt to think about mathematical formulas I havnt used since I was at university.

As for the rest of it, I still dont care about the difference between theory and scientific theory.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:51:53 2011 No.3928416
File: 79 KB, 468x335, 17-Bounce-Tastic-Sofia-Vergara-Gifs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3928381
Yes, that is widely accepted in the particle physics community as a whole. QTF actually makes alot more fucking sense, and provides alot more usefull information when you consider that the particle actually, "reverses direction through time".

It seems alittle off putting to many at first, even by some other types of physicist. But is universally accepted none-the-less.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:52:53 2011 No.3928418

>>3928407

If a electron is annihilated too far in the future, where would the positron be able to go in the past? It keep the same location but travel backwards to a universe that hasn't expanded that far yet. Unless there is an actual edge of the universe that could keep it in the known universe as time reverses.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:52:53 2011 No.3928420 >>3928398 here is a suggestion for you, make your own thread, this is my thread, it was started and kept alive by my efforts, so fuck off or simply stop replying to me.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:54:53 2011 No.3928426

>>3928416

> Yes, that is widely accepted in the particle physics community as a whole

bullshit.

> QTF actually makes alot more fucking sense, and provides alot more usefull information when you consider that the particle actually, "reverses direction through time".

Bullshit of the highest form.

Please talk to some good physicist you know of, in case you really are working in that field to clear up all your misunderstandings.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:55:53 2011 No.3928431 >>3928418 It doesn't matter for the argument actually, but since there's not an edge, the positron would never be anywhere "outside" the universe.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 08:57:53 2011 No.3928439 >>3928346 Here: http://books.google.com/books?id=xt-Vvhloo8YC&printsec=frontcover&dq=feynman&hl=de&e i=mBqgTqG0E8eA4gSqhb3xBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CFkQ6AEwBg# v=onepage&q&f=false Point me to where he mentions it.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:00:53 2011 No.3928443

>>3928242

What you are probably referring to is the Feynman-Stueckelberg interpretation, which is merely that - an interpretation. It has no practical, let alone physical value. Just a neat and interesting discovery. It does not at all mean matter travels backwards in time and becomes observable to us as antimatter.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:01:53 2011 No.3928448

>>3928387

Sigh. So matter would be antimatter traveling backwards in time, right? Since there is more matter than antimatter, as you stated, there you have your fucking problem.

So what is it now, antimatter is matter backwards, or matter is antimatter backwards? only one backwards? Both backwards?

hurrrrr

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:02:53 2011 No.3928449 353 replies, id say this was succesfull by every measure of the rule.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:02:53 2011 No.3928451 >>3928449 >253

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:02:53 2011 No.3928452 >>3928449 Adjust your measuring device. Only 260 replies found here. Not that it was any less pathetic though.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:03:53 2011 No.3928454 >>3928452 >>3928451 beat you too it im afraid.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:03:53 2011 No.3928455 >>3928454 ffffuuuuuuu

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:09:53 2011 No.3928470 In order to have a model you need to have math. Models aren't built with bullshit.

Physics Guy Thu Oct 20 09:10:53 2011 No.3928471
File: 25 KB, 281x291, strange-albert-einstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3928407
Yes, All anit-particles = some particles. The group of all particles includes matter and antimatter. Sorry if this wasnt' evident to you, but that is neither here nor there.

>right now we would be bombarded by uncountable many particles flying backwards that were produced in the future.

Nope, where the fuck are you drawing such shitty conclusons from. The particles flying backwards through time (in the future) are the antiparticles traveling forwards in time today.

Are you sure you read QTF books? Cause it doesnt sound like you have, maybe you need to review?

>Production

You have a very plebian concept of production. Production in the sense of fundemental objects is relative. Either end of a particle line could be considered production. You can say the anti-particle was produced and went forward in time, or the particle was produced and went backwards in time.

AS LONG AS THE LINES MEET, IT IS THE FUCKING SAME PARTICLE. IT DOESNT MATTER HOW YOU VIEW IT. Plus it explains why there are anitparticles!

I am just paraphrasing feynman here. I need to go though, I got a meeting at CERN in 20min. If you are really interested in this shit, you should review QFT, and look up the work of feynam. IT IS ALL THERE, PLAIN AS DAY. Good luck to you.

>>3928420
It is nice that you like physics, it is cute. Stop being a fag though, and maybe don't post such retarded nonsense. This aint /b/

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:13:53 2011 No.3928473 >>3928470 scientific models, i grant you are built with math. non scientific models dont need math because they are just ideas prepared for the challenge of finding the math to prove it. If noone even considers the idea, then the math is never made.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:16:53 2011 No.3928481 >>3928448 Technicly spoken, the term backwards isn't really the right term. It's more like, the anti-particle moves through anti-time, in an anti-universe. Shit just got real.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:16:53 2011 No.3928485 >>3928471 Which part of this entire nonsense is the part i shouldnt post lol.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:16:53 2011 No.3928487

>>3928471

> Physics Guy

Oh boy, it's you troll again.

> Nope, where the fuck are you drawing such shitty conclusons from. The particles flying backwards through time (in the future) are the antiparticles traveling forwards in time today.

That's the fucking problem. If they actually WERE matter flying backwards, we'd notice it. Why does it make sense to include anti-matter in the group of all particles, if they're just matter going backwards? It doesn't.

> Either end of a particle line could be considered production
Yes, exactly. Could be considered. And that's why the statement "Antimatter is matter going backwards in time" is false and the statement "antimatter can be interpreted as matter going backwards in time" is correct.

Remember, I explained before how CPT symmetry is related to this possibility of interpreting Feynman diagrams.

> review QFT, and look up the work of feynam. IT IS ALL THERE, PLAIN AS DAY. Good luck to you.

I'm pretty sure that's you who has to. Since you still fail to provide source or explanation.

Posting pics of Einstein and caps lock won't make your arguments worth anything. I in contrast have explained how the CPT theorem is related.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:17:53 2011 No.3928488

>>3928473
Non-scientific models are built with plastic and put together with glue. Scientific models are formed when someone takes an idea and builds a mathematical expression of the idea. The idea itself isn't a model, it is just an idea. Not all ideas are created equal either, and OP's idea(s) is(are) nonsense.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:19:53 2011 No.3928494 >>3928488 non scientific model is a representation of any concept or idea. in this paticular case, it relates to a visual model of the universe based on hypothesis as well as some scientific theory.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:22:53 2011 No.3928501

The correct statement would be:

If CPT is a conserved symmetry, in quantum field theory, we cannot distinguish between the situation that an anti-matter particle is going forward in time or a matter-particle is going backwards in time.

That's a huge fucking difference to "antimatter is matter traveling backwards", which is just retarded and shortminded.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:30:53 2011 No.3928517 This thread needs more replies, we haven't hit the 300 yet.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:33:53 2011 No.3928522 File: 61 KB, 750x600, motivator4f57aea6d3e77b17b438fbcce09ef4872c44cfa7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] agred

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:33:53 2011 No.3928523

Why do people with no sufficient background knowledge think they can come up with explanations that fucking REQUIRES lots of knowledge of recent research? You retards think you're somehow so special, but have you considered that tens of thousands of physicists have thought about these things for a long time, and by using rationality, have come to similar or the same conclusions that you have? And perhaps maybe, after looking through data and equations, realized those explanations didn't fit or need more evidence to support them (thus they NEED tons of tweaking to achieve accuracy, since that's how all theories come into validation)?

The reason there are rigorously edited research journals is because people are creative, and they throw literally thousands of ideas to explain just one thing. Those thousands of ideas are later discarded once they're proven false. What makes you think your idea is so much better that you can formulate it using explanations that EVERY single physicist knows? You need more details to cut away at fallacies and errors that don't seem apparent, and this specificity requires a high level of understanding.

You are not the only person with a strong knowledge of astrophysics, or the only person with grand ideas. The only reason why anyone would argue for their crazy, unsupported theory is if they believe they are special and chosen.... like jesus. Just look back and realize that you're no better than the religious nuts who think they're prophets.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:34:53 2011 No.3928524

stuff like

>Massless particles can travel faster than light, dark matter is literally shot back through time, we cant view it because it exists outside of our space time and is travelling in an opposite direction.

requires too much faith

stuff like

>I called einstein out before the neutrino experiment, he left no room for exception, he based it on solid reasoning, but didnt complete the theory, because he failed to see the possibility of massless particles, which completly throw out his relativity formula.

clearly labels you as an arrogant fuckhead who dislikes truth and only likes physics so he can prove himself as superior. you should start a cult like Heaven's Gate soon, you can take a few of those crazy people (like the mass cancels out lady, time cube and vortex math dude) with you.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:36:53 2011 No.3928529

Op here (concession to the butthurt guys);

I still havnt heard a convincing reason why black holes could not be the source of dark matter, at the very least it doesnt contradict anything that has been stated in this thread (even though a load of other stuff has been argued about).

It still seems like a perfectly reasonable suggestion.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:37:53 2011 No.3928532 >>3928529 > I still havnt heard a convincing reason why black holes could not be the source of dark matter Maybe that's because no one disagreed with that. The thing is, that assumption does not lead to any new conclusions.

>>	TheJokingGuy Thu Oct 20 09:38:53 2011 No.3928537 >>3928517 I'm still here so I'll contribute. More fun than doing actual work here at office.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:38:53 2011 No.3928538 >>3928523 I agree entirely, which is why I made a thread on 4chan to talk about it. Or are you so concieted that you cant imagine someone wanting to sound out thier ideas on people who actually may have a much better understanding of it.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:41:53 2011 No.3928543

>>3928524
not really, what it means is i never held einstein in the same esteem as others, even as a teenager I state e=mc2 seemed wrong to me, seemed incomplete but i didnt know why.

Just because I dont revere einstein doesnt mean im arrogant or retarded or anything else, it means I had a feeling he was wrong, and have recently had the first proof appear which bolstered my ego slightly, the feeling that I was right not to worship every word he said.

What it doesnt mean is that I consider MYSELF better than einstein, simply that I never held him to the same esteem as others.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:44:53 2011 No.3928549

>>3928532
well sorry for pointing out the obvious, but if noone thinks its a paticularly good idea, why arnt we discussing how we can monitor black holes to see.

Why arnt we sitting down and talking about it openly, trying to get some method of observing the process of what happens to matter in black holes, I know they are hard to even find let alone view and monitor, but arnt we at the right point in time to be asking the questions that lead to ideas about how to do it?

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:46:53 2011 No.3928553

>>3928543

> even as a teenager I state e=mc2 seemed wrong to me, seemed incomplete but i didnt know why

yup, arrogant fuckhead detected.

Though it's true of course, that that formula only holds true in the rest frame of reference.

If you want to criticise his theory, go learn it first.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:49:53 2011 No.3928558 >>3928553 Like I said as a 12 year old I just felt something weird about relativity, i couldnt say why, and it is a matter of recorded fact, not arrogance. Still if arrogant works for you who am I too argue.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:49:53 2011 No.3928559 dark matter is not massless it has dark mass dark is not a kind of light it is not limited by the speed of light

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:50:53 2011 No.3928562 >>3928559 mkay.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:50:53 2011 No.3928564 >>3928558 > Like I said as a 12 year old I just felt something weird about relativity And instead of first thinking "I think I didn't get it" you said "I think it's wrong". -> arrogant fuckhead

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:51:53 2011 No.3928566 >>3928558 >who am I to argue a person who doesn't understand punctuation, apparently.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:52:53 2011 No.3928568 epic trollfest

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:53:53 2011 No.3928571 >>3928566 A person that doesnt care to punctuate on 4chan apparently. >>3928564 Still dont paticularly care how you view me

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:54:53 2011 No.3928576 >>3927235 /thread, or not it seems...

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:58:53 2011 No.3928587 >>3928571 >A person that doesnt care to punctuate on 4chan apparently. Lazy and out of date. Good to know.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 09:58:53 2011 No.3928588 >>3928571 > Still dont paticularly care how you view me I know, that's your biggest problem. You have a character that still needs shaping. This can best be acompülished by listening to others and thinking about oneself. Kung Fu, if you like.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 10:06:53 2011 No.3928621

>>3928588
Listening to you would make me kill myself, which youd probably like at this point but hey its not in my best interest.

If I had listened to every word einstein had said, Id simply have been butthurt like you instead of bolstered by my sheer brilliance.

>>3928587
Indeed, I didnt spend my whole life studying one subject, I learnt practical skills, carpentry, metal working, stone masonry, general diy, as well as subjects like
computer programming
anatomy
phycology
etc

yeh sure is lazy up in my brain, and i sure have no excuse for being out of date from like 20 years ago being my first exposure (and btw if you read the thread properly youd know I even studied physics at university which is where I became more convinced I was right about relativity being incomplete, even though every textbook and lecturer told me it was bullet proof rock solid stone cold truth.

Yes being a sheep does really help shape you in this world, or wait no, it just means your using others personality traits to add to your allready bland persona.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 10:11:53 2011 No.3928638

>>3928621

> Listening to you would make me kill myself,
First, I'm not one of those, it is not in my interest to make people kill themselves.
Second, you will never improve and always be the flaming homosexual attention whore you are making yourself look like in here if you don't start rethinking your personality.

I have studied physics. Relativity is the most beautiful theory I have ever seen. I suggest you start there. Good luck.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 10:11:53 2011 No.3928640 File: 10 KB, 259x194, images..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 10:17:53 2011 No.3928648

My guess is OP read something about black holes and dark matter, then smoked a blunt and now he thinks he's fucking Einstein.

Something isn't a 'model' just because you say it is. It has to be backed up by maths and there has to be some sort of testable hypothesis. Your ramblings have neither.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 10:19:53 2011 No.3928650

>>3928638
Dont remember saying anything about its beauty, just that its allways seemed incomplete to me, and e=mc2 was allways at the heart of what I felt was wrong, even when I couldnt begin to say why.

Your concern for my personality is truly touching, but I hope your not implying that faggots dont listen to others opinions or think about what and who they are and try to develop because that sir, would be racist.

Ill just let that sink in a second.

Ok now your reply is allready, your probably getting ready to type something but hold on.

I would suggest you take stock of your own life and own self before daring to question anothers choices, your clear lack of thought on these comments you have made shows up a whole lot about yourself, and I would hate to say it but you sound like your projecting your own insecurities onto me.

Do you really believe anyone on 4chan will listen to you bitch about their personalities and take it too heart?

Change comes from within, its a process of phycological growth from experience, not from some prick on a forum saying "you need to learn kung fu bro".

Allthough I would expect no less from a troll.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 10:19:53 2011 No.3928651 >>3928621 Relativity has been proven time and time again. Explain how you think it is 'incomplete'.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 10:20:53 2011 No.3928653 >>3928648 stated, answered, and restated and reanswered. >>3928494 Heres a helping hand if your struggling to read.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 10:23:53 2011 No.3928664

>>3928651
It does not explain everything, it explains everything we have observed UNTIL NOW, the model is incomplete, because science is incomplete, or is that too difficult to grasp? I know my professor used to have a hard time argueing with me about it.

Also
Neutrinos move faster than light in an experiment:
e=mc2 is called into question.

Im giving you no more than that, that should be enough for you to understand

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 10:25:53 2011 No.3928670 >thinks e=mc2 is wrong no shit, equation is e=mc^2

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 10:26:53 2011 No.3928671

>>3928650

> Dont remember saying anything about its beauty
> implying i was saying you neglected its beauty

You even make up stuff that others did not say at all. The entire thread. This is one of the things you'd need to work on. Trust me, your life will improve if you do so.

> racist.

As far as i remember, faggots are not a race.

> your clear lack of thought on these comments you have made shows up a whole lot about yourself, and I would hate to say it but you sound like your projecting your own insecurities onto me.
Nope, not at all. I do think very much about what i say or type, that's why my posts and thoughts are mostly consistent, and that's also why I don't make up false things that others didn't say before.

> Do you really believe anyone on 4chan will listen to you bitch about their personalities and take it too heart?

I don't care, it was just an advice to you. Do with it whatever you will.

> Change comes from within, its a process of phycological growth from experience, not from some prick on a forum saying "you need to learn kung fu bro".

That's the goddamn same thing. Kung Fu means "hard work on yourself". And that is exactly what you need.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 10:28:53 2011 No.3928674

>>3928664

Relativity is not there to explain things, it is a necessity to put relativity into models to make them consistent and compatible with our universe.

> Neutrinos move faster than light in an experiment:
No.

> e=mc2 is called into question.
No, not at all.

Do you even have a slight idea of what E=mc² means?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 10:31:53 2011 No.3928678 >>3927214 >OP's post >Dark Matter, matter without mass, wtf he doesn't even know what dark matter is

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 10:32:53 2011 No.3928680

>>3928670
You know what I meant.

Ill ask you what I told my physics teacher 20 years ago:

"Can you be 100% fucking sure there are no other variables that come into play and affect this equation"?

That was enough for him to give up. my uni professor was more understanding of my question, and sat with me trying to get at what I was connecting to, what I saw as being missing.

I dont know, and I gave up far too quickly being surrounded like people from this thread who sit in judgement of the ideas I cant fully explain, they made me feel like I was letting myself down by not having studied physics since I was 6 just like you guys.

They made me feel like I had nothing to contribute or offer just like you guys, truth is I doubt I will ever get to the bottom of that feeling, and it was a feeling, a gut instinct that screamed it was wrong somehow, and nothing more.

Considering I had passed the units I needed I left and didnt look back for some years, feeling completly disenfranchised by the entire events that happened in that fucking lecture hall.

There will never be in my life a more soul crushing moment than standing in front of a room full of physics majors all questioning me and trying to force knowledge that I didnt have out of me whatever the cost to my ego.

I left and never went back, and avoided those students untill I left.

Now I see this fucking boad as the vent for my rage, this is where I can make you all suffer without the humilation that came along with it.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 10:39:53 2011 No.3928689

>>3928671
You state that relativity was the most beautifull theory youd ever seen, as if it were said that I didnt know that, or that I should simply abandon my thoughts because its beautfull without caring about its accuracy.

If that wasnt your intent, then its a pity, because that is how it was recieved.

no faggots are not a race, it was supposed to be humour, which is why the following sentence was constructed to point that out to you...

What I need is none of your fucking business, and you dont have enough data to know what I do or do not do to improve myself.

If you want to give advice, dont be advesarial and dont insult, otherwise your words are wasted instantly, taking a moral highground only works if your actually taking the highroad instead of just saying you are, I accept my flaws, you talk as if your shits dont even stink anymore and know exactly what everyone else should do.

As a point of interest, I usually do the opposite of whatever anyone wants me to do without asking me in a respectfull way or talking to me in respectfull tone, you did neither and I will argue every word you type, just because I dont like the way you state your advice.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 10:39:53 2011 No.3928691

>>3928664
>It does not explain everything

No shit, why do you think Quantum mechanics was thought up? You are bringing nothing to the table we didn't already know.

>Neutrinos move faster than light in an experiment

Nope. Neutrino's were thought to be travelling faster than light in one experiment, which required ridiculous amounts of accuracy and accounting for a large number of variables. It needs to be repeated several times for it to hold any weight. Here is one explanation of what could have happened;

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27260/

How has E=mc^2 has only ever been proven right, it is not called into question just because you say so. You are talking shit

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 10:42:53 2011 No.3928702 >>3928680 > That was enough for him to give up Sure wasn't physics prof. E=mc² isn't the complete formula. E² = - m²c^4 + p²c² is.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 10:43:53 2011 No.3928703 omg, i just read the half thread and laughed my ass off when every second here thinks that EVERY sun turns into a supernovae or black hole xD our sun e.g. turns into a red giant and then into a white dwarf, no supernova, no black hole

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 10:44:53 2011 No.3928709

>>3928674
ok, your going to annoy me arnt you.

yes energy equals mass time the constant speed of light squared, i understand it, i know it and it makes sense to a degree.

But the neutrino experiment (yes it did) calls into question the speed of light in its use in the equation.

If the neutrino can travel faster than light, then the fundamental nature of what energy is produced by a mass at the constant speed of light becomes subject to "the exception the proves the rule".

In so much as that if there is another measurement of speed involved in certain explosive events, the energy would not simply equal the mass times the constant.

Now I accept the neutrino experiment is still unproven and still being tested, I also know its a conveniant way of explaining why I allways felt a variable was missing from the formula, a variable which refelects a theorum which relates to a special event which contravenes the normal equation.

le sigh, do the rest yourself.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 10:45:53 2011 No.3928710 >>3928689 You keep referring to some whimsical notion that Relativity is wrong base on some sort of 'gut feeling' you have. You are talking complete shit, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you don't have it.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 10:45:53 2011 No.3928711

>>3928689

> as if it were said that I didnt know that, or that I should simply abandon my thoughts because its beautfull without caring about its accuracy.

See? That's what i mean. I was not at all implying that. Why do you think you make things like this up?

> What I need is none of your fucking business, and you dont have enough data to know what I do or do not do to improve myself.

This thread is enough to show at least a bit of your personality. I know it's none of my business, I'm just offering advice. Take it or don't, I don't care. Take my word though, you still need shaping.

> you talk as if your shits dont even stink anymore and know exactly what everyone else should do.

Example?

> you did neither
What? I did indeed state it in a respectful manner. You were the one starting name-calling.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 10:48:53 2011 No.3928718 >>3928703 good reading of nothing at all. I even corrected the statement at a later point, or are you still reading that, no you just gave up and decided to post, good fail.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 10:48:53 2011 No.3928719

>>3928709

> yes energy equals mass time the constant speed of light squared, i understand it, i know it and it makes sense to a degree

That's totally NOT what it says. Proves you didn't investigate that formula at all before criticising it.

> But the neutrino experiment (yes it did) calls into question the speed of light in its use in the equation
No it doesn't. Damn. What makes you think so? In that equation, c is just a damn constant. A conversion factor. Putting another constant there doesn't change anything physically.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 10:50:53 2011 No.3928725

>>3928710
It is what it is, your not the first to say it, and its why I walked away, I dont know enough/arnt smart enough to answer the why.

All I can tell you is it isnt complete.

As for the guy who posted the whole thing /clap thanks for wasting some time.

have we reached 300 yet?

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 10:55:53 2011 No.3928739

>>3928711
>See? That's what i mean. I was not at all implying that. Why do you think you make things like this up?

I have studied physics. Relativity is the most beautiful theory I have ever seen. I suggest you start there. Good luck

Like I said you implied I needed to start at the theory ive been discussing this entire thread, stop throwing shit around its getting sad trying to pretend you didnt say something that could be construed in many different ways mostly as an insult, especially when its followed by:

>>Second, you will never improve and always be the flaming homosexual attention whore you are making yourself look like in here if you don't start rethinking your personality.

And as is clearly stated in this thread, when you dont know the whole picture and start making claims you end up looking stupid, which I have been willing to do throughout this thread, in the mean time you continue to plead some kind of fuzzy ignorance about your own words.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 10:59:53 2011 No.3928745

>>3928739

> you implied I needed to start at the theory ive been discussing this entire thread,

I said "suggest". I was just saying relativity is beautiful and worth studying. What the fuck is your problem? This is not the first time you "misunderstand" something. You have been doing it the whole thread.

> you continue to plead some kind of fuzzy ignorance about your own words

Wow. You sure became pathetic.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 10:59:53 2011 No.3928749

>>3928719
the constant is the constant speed of light, which is usually a very good measurement to use, but I dont think it encompases enough factors that may be involved.

Done answering this point, i think ive reached my goal by now.

oh and other guy
>I know, that's your biggest problem. You have a character that still needs shaping. This can best be acompülished by listening to others and thinking about oneself. Kung Fu, if you like.

That to me is an insult, you began the insutls and I continued them, perspective is a funny thing, I think maybe you should take a time out to consider how well you put your words, because if you werent trying to be insulting you managed it in spades.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 11:03:53 2011 No.3928762 Dude, you need to chill and stop seeing everything people say as attacks on your person.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 11:05:53 2011 No.3928769

Well just checked and were done here, its been fun wasting /sci/ time, expect to see me again soon coming to a thread near you.

Let me give you a formula:
Victory = the combination of all your wasted times - my wasted time.

Vi = yt + xt - mt.
y+x-1

enjoy aspies.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 11:05:53 2011 No.3928770

>>3928749

> That to me is an insult,

What? Seriously. No.

> you began the insutls and I continued them

That's extremely childish. I did not start though. trace back the posts and see you were the first. I never start internet cursing.

> I think maybe you should take a time out to consider how well you put your words

Seeing how you are the one getting upset over literally everything, you might have to change your perspective on things, but you seem to never think about how you could be wrong.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 11:06:53 2011 No.3928773 >>3928762 >stop seeing attacks on your personality, as attacks on your personality. lol really thats what you come back with?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 11:06:53 2011 No.3928775 >>3928769 But that equals out to zero. Zero accomplishment means you wasted time.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 11:07:53 2011 No.3928778 >>3928770 insutls do not need curses to be insults. And yes it was childish but you joined the thread after I was willing to continue being civil.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 11:08:53 2011 No.3928780 >>3928773 Come back to what? Haven't been here for hours. Was just checking back to see you getting butthurt more and more lol

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 11:08:53 2011 No.3928785 >>3928775 lol you guys really are so fucking easy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 11:09:53 2011 No.3928787 >>3928780 >saging a thread that has literally been circling the drain for hours. >lol

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 11:12:53 2011 No.3928803 >>3928787 I sage'd some other thread. It remains in the e-mail field if I don't remove it manually. youmustbenewhere.jpg

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 11:15:53 2011 No.3928813 >>3928803 lol, still spending all your time talking to me, if i ever get lonley all i need to do is come to /sci/ mention something that I dont understand and watch you guys get mad and scream relativity over and over.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 11:17:53 2011 No.3928822 >>3928813 Where did i get mad? But hey, if you feel lonely, I'll stay in this thread just for you.

>>	sage sage Thu Oct 20 11:20:53 2011 No.3928833 die already piece of shit thread

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 11:22:53 2011 No.3928839
File: 49 KB, 1006x427, bannedjpg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

sometimes, its really hard to troll /b/, those guys expect every post to be a troll, so you go to /x/ and after a while annoy the mods enough that they ban you, so you go to /tv/ and annoy the mods there enough that they ban you, then /lit/ /fit/ until you think hmm i have never trolled /sci/

So you read some threads, lurk a couple days, watch a documentary on the bbc and come on ready to argue, throw in some stories, throw in enough inconsitenices and buttmad to make it believable then sit back and enjoy an entire days entertainment for free without ever getting banned.

fucking beautifull work, this is saved for future use.

Thank all of you for being so damned easy to troll, I didnt even fucking know what I was talking about but you couldnt help but respond and listen and keep responding.

I mean fuck I dont even have a job and universtity lmao I never went to college.

This has just been so much fun today, I have to thank all of you from the bottom of my middle finger right to the top, cya in a week or two /sci/

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 11:22:53 2011 No.3928845 Was fun trolling THE SHIT out of you guys, hahahahaha

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 11:24:53 2011 No.3928850 >>3928839 Congratulations on wastin gyet another complete day of your miserable existence. > complete utter bullshit stupid stories > lol i trold you jokes on you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 11:25:53 2011 No.3928861 >>3928850 aww you sound hurt, would you like me to shove my cock in your mouth to finish off a brilliant day?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 11:28:53 2011 No.3928868 >>3928861 Yes please, master. Oh by the way, calling everyone mad who obviously aren't mad is just making you look like a newfag.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 11:29:53 2011 No.3928875 Oh he pulled the trolling card finally. Just about time. He's just too mad. Almost exploding from butthurt.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 11:29:53 2011 No.3928879 >>3928868 Oh im not calling you all mad, just enough of you that got mad at different points, there are some real gems I pulled out of you guys today. But you sir, definatly sound like you have sand in your vagina.

Anonymous Thu Oct 20 11:31:53 2011 No.3928883

>>3928875
Nice to see another one of you is still here.

I originally had a target of 100 replies, but when that went by 200, then 250, then someone else said 300 and i thought fuck it ive come this far.

Hope you enjoyed yourself /bro/

Btw any /b/tards in here from the thread I created like 10 hours ago?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 11:32:53 2011 No.3928885 >>3928879 YeahI liek dat feel.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 11:32:53 2011 No.3928888 >>3928883 yup. The sand in the vagina thing unmasked you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 11:34:53 2011 No.3928893 >>3928888 i literally have not reread the thread, im saving it for a rainy day when I need a laugh, I have no idea where the sand in vagina part came out, was that early?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 11:34:53 2011 No.3928895 >>3928893 I don't remember lol

>>	Josef crossed the Atlantic !!nUf2NflSAyw Thu Oct 20 11:42:53 2011 No.3928918 >Go to bed >Wake up, have breakfast, open laptop >Over 300 new replies in this thread What the fuck

>>	Josef crossed the Atlantic None !!PPvvYo+kDzp Thu Oct 20 11:44:53 2011 No.3928925 Not that I was not a part of this

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 11:45:53 2011 No.3928933 >>3928925 wow hello there. Now I get to ask the important question, was it completly obvious how much i was trolling?

>>	Josef crossed the Atlantic !!/PkezkS0PvJ Thu Oct 20 11:47:53 2011 No.3928939 >>3928933 Not the whole time, but mostly yes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 11:48:53 2011 No.3928943 >>3928939 Thats good enough for me.

>>	Anonymous !xRfiKkclkg Thu Oct 20 12:17:53 2011 No.3929073 >MATTER WITHOUT MASS, matter that cannot be seen, matter that is shooting out from black holes and interacting with the electro magnestism and GRAVITY Nigga you just went full retard.

>>	Anonymous !xRfiKkclkg Thu Oct 20 12:21:53 2011 No.3929088 >>3929073 Shame on you /sci/. The idiot said that massless particles affect Gravity in the first fucking post, and none of you caught it. You all deserved to be trolled.

>>	Josef crossed the Atlantic !!nUf2NflSAyw Thu Oct 20 12:25:53 2011 No.3929101 >>3929088 Photons are massless but affect gravity.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 17:11:53 2011 No.3930459 Fuck me this thread is still here

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 20 17:16:53 2011 No.3930486 File: 12 KB, 306x227, fuck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]