Horizon

I saw an interesting episode of the long running science programme Horizon the other day.  Apparently physicists can only account for about 4% of the mass of the universe in terms of things that we supposedly understand.  That is to say, atoms.  That leaves a massive 96% unaccounted for.  Now dark matter was meant to plug this gap.  Problem- none has ever seen or measured it and hence its existence is purely theoretical.  Another problem is that the latest in astro physics claims that dark matter only accounts for another 20% or more of the missing mass.  Enter from stage left "Dark Energy".  Now I'm not a physicist so my first  reaction to this is EH!  Interestingly, other theories are out there to vhallenge this new wave of asrophysical theory stating that all can be accounted for with our present understanding of the universe and it's composition.  The problem here though ( I unfortunately cannot remember the scientists name ) is that the explaination challenges some of the most fundamentally accepted laws of physics.  Namely those of Newton.  The assertion is therefor that we can better understand the universe if we challenge the laws of gravity and motion.  Go figure.  These are cutting edge theorists and they're challenging beliefs that have been held for hundreds of years.  Hohum.

Answers on a postcard

OOOOMG!!!!!R3d4lert!SC13NCE GEEK!!!!

N0one\/\/4nts-A-N00blkieyuoH3R3! GoR34d YuorSuXX0rCo113geb00ks!!!
DW3333333333B!!!!!111111111111!!

StFuWtih Ur B0rInG///!!!11 G33kA$$mo-fo!

n00b!!1337, lololololol,Ug01 Fl4/\/\3D BigT1mE!

That is of course the exact reply I was looking for.  The prose and composition of this is beyond superlative.  Your use of expletives far surpases my meagre attempt to provoke discussion.  

I know you havn't been able to form an appropriate sexual relationship from the lengthy and soul searching message you sent me.  Rest assured the household pet has suffered no lasting trauma although I would recommend counselling in case you feel these urges again.

Of course you're very socially retarded as well aren't you.  I'm a psychologist.  I may be able to help you come to terms with your difficulty in formong a coherent relationship.  That is a coherrent relationship with something human, though I know from your message that the something is probably a dominant male.  Each to their own I suppose.  

I do hope someone without socio-sexual problems answers to this.  It was only a point of interest!

Answers on a postcard

Well well well. Isn't this a scene.

A predicable yet satire responce from the most arrogant forum leech "Mikolaj_Koppernigk=cojon"

Tell me if your a phychologist...and rest assured my A-Level phychology course I completed last year will back me up on this. Why would an academic man/woman like your self spend most his/her days deliberatly posting a thread showing off his/her arrogance about a topic regarding theoretical physics. Your posts are littered with flamboyant language showing off your great intellect just DYING for someone like me to come and rip the piss!

You want to antagonise people, so you can get responces so you can flame them back with your tough-science-man talk, probabuly because it makes you feel even greater. Your pretty pathetic for an academic individual who has so much stored up there, great grammer and spelling. All wasted becuse your an arrogant cock who likes to wind people up.

And your poor wit about the household pet and sexual relationships are hardly original. I will admit I'm pretty lonely after my last girlfriend left me, but what do you know and what right does an arsehole like you have to take the piss. I don't have a pet either, can't afford it.

I tried to be friendly to you in my PM, but it seems your too full of your self to even accept my offer of civilised conversation. Soul searching you tell me? Get lost.

Your soul should writhe in agony you scumbag! Happy Valentine's.

Wow spook!  That was you?  I Honestly didn't know, but hey.  I also hadn't read your reply until now.  Jeez you seem determined to bring out the worse in me and me being all polite and all.  Like I have said I never flame people.  I will however respond sometimes to being flamed.  So you have multiple accounts on here.  Whats that all about.  You must've created that one post account simply to flame me with that nonsense.  I can only imagine why.  

answers on a postcard

Don't worry mikolaj, no matter what Spook says, I still love you.

Thank you EnragedPenguin.  Whats irritating is that was a really interesting episode of Horizon and I also thought that some folks in here may find the above points interesting.  They are of course now lost in a morrass of bickering.  Oh well.  On with the show.

Answres on a postcard

Honestly, I think only theoretical physicists would be able to comment intelligently on the findings of this programme.  The calculation of the mass of the universe is already way beyond a normal person's comprehension.

Although I seem to remember a time when physicists could account for 70% of the mass of the universe and only needed 30% to be dark matter.  Ah the good ol' days when the universe was only slightly overweight.  It needs to go on a diet.

Hohum.

Sounds like MOND.

A cursory Google search turns up http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/.

-Erasmus

I saw an interesting episode of the long running science programme Horizon the other day.  Apparently physicists can only account for about 4% of the mass of the universe in terms of things that we supposedly understand.  That is to say, atoms.  That leaves a massive 96% unaccounted for.  Now dark matter was meant to plug this gap.  Problem- none has ever seen or measured it and hence its existence is purely theoretical.  Another problem is that the latest in astro physics claims that dark matter only accounts for another 20% or more of the missing mass.  Enter from stage left "Dark Energy".  Now I'm not a physicist so my first  reaction to this is EH!  Interestingly, other theories are out there to vhallenge this new wave of asrophysical theory stating that all can be accounted for with our present understanding of the universe and it's composition.  The problem here though ( I unfortunately cannot remember the scientists name ) is that the explaination challenges some of the most fundamentally accepted laws of physics.  Namely those of Newton.  The assertion is therefor that we can better understand the universe if we challenge the laws of gravity and motion.  Go figure.  These are cutting edge theorists and they're challenging beliefs that have been held for hundreds of years.  Hohum.

Answers on a postcard

Here is my take on it:

You start with a unprovable claim that "physicists can only account for about 4% of the mass of the universe" how do they know the mass of the Universe in the first place? And then, of course all of them will disagree with each other, because everyone comes up with his own number to make calculations from.
It's like saying assume I can build a castle on air, and then arguing about how many towers to build four or five. It makes no difference 4 or 5 the initial assumtion is not possible therefore the argument on the number of towers is pointless.
They do that with macro-evolution all the time, they assume that Big Bang, Stelar evolution, chemical evolution, and evolution of non-organic chemicals into a life form are true and happend and start building on that foundation, just funny.

Questions on a podcast.

Here is my take on it

Your take on it is gibberish.

You make it sound like, 2000 years ago, Aristotle and Plato got together and said, "So yeah, where do we start?  Well, how 'bouts we have a 'Big Bang', and evolution of inorganic chemicals into a life form.  Sound good to you, Ari?"  And then the thousands of years of fools that followed them, especially the empiricist fools starting with Galileo, just added their imaginative but otherwise unsupported-by-evidence speculation to that?

I reiterate my complaint about a little learning.

-Erasmus

Quote from: "Malrix"

Here is my take on it

Your take on it is gibberish.

You make it sound like, 2000 years ago, Aristotle and Plato got together and said, "So yeah, where do we start?  Well, how 'bouts we have a 'Big Bang', and evolution of inorganic chemicals into a life form.  Sound good to you, Ari?"  And then the thousands of years of fools that followed them, especially the empiricist fools starting with Galileo, just added their imaginative but otherwise unsupported-by-evidence speculation to that?

I reiterate my complaint about a little learning.

-Erasmus

Exactly right!

They can talk about whatever they want, but not everything they talk about is science.

Yeah chew on that!!!

You make it sound like, 2000 years ago, Aristotle and Plato got together and said, "So yeah, where do we start?  Well, how 'bouts we have a 'Big Bang', and evolution of inorganic chemicals into a life form.  Sound good to you, Ari?"  And then the thousands of years of fools that followed them, especially the empiricist fools starting with Galileo, just added their imaginative but otherwise unsupported-by-evidence speculation to that?

Erasmus, it is you who has the flawed knowledge.

Aristotle and Plato were not merely philosophers, they were the gansters of ancient Greece.

One day, after they had performed a drive-by chariot attack on Socrates, they were hiding in a wine cellar from the cops.

They both got so drunk they started spewing jibberish about the meaning of life and existence. Plato asked "Man, how wus the Earth made?"
But Ari wasn't listening, he was so drunk he was like "Dude, I'm think' 'bout gettin a bunch of girls roun an' havin this Big Bang -"
And Plato was like, "Dude, far out! You're like, a total freakin' genius man! The Big Bang! That's how it totally happend!

And so the Big Bang theory was born. Gallileo did not add to it, obviously, as he was in the Italian Mafia who were rivals to the Grecian Mafia.

So there, Erasmus, not so smart now, eh?

Aristotle and Plato were not merely philosophers, they were the gansters of ancient Greece.

Aw, bro, it is as though my peeps have let me down yet again.  Such disrespec' these eyes hath not seen.

-Erasmus

Aw, bro, it is as though my peeps have let me down yet again. Such disrespec' these eyes hath not seen.

Shakespeare goes urban gangster?  Lord help us.

Some interesting stuff on this in a recent copy of NewScientist.  

Dark energy was supposedly formulated to explain why the expansion of the universe is accelerating.   Dark energy is equivelant to Einsteins cosmological constant stating that vacuum in space counters gravity.  This supposedly does not stand up to calculation.  Dark energy may be explained by neutrinos formed after the big bang and which have survived since they do not interact with matter in a readily measureable way.  Three types of neutrino exist and they can apparently mix, which forms the crux of this theory since neutrino mixing may solve the dark matter issue.  The vacuum of space, it is proposed, consists of neutrino particles which flash in and out of existence creating energy through their interaction with the vacuum.   This theory is supposedly testable. Accounting therefor for the lost mass.

On a related topic

E=MC squared.  One of the most well known and accepted equations (energy=massxspeed of light squared).  This has recently been proved to the factor of 1 in 2,000,000.  Previously this had only been demonstrated to 1 in 50000 through the use of adapted quantum scales.  The new result was reached by the collaboration of 2 separate research groups investigating different parts of the equation and pooling the results.  Now 1 in 50,000 is impressive and sure to convince most people, so why the neccessity to take the "proof" a leap further.  Because science recognises thst proof does not exist (sometimes) and the only goal can be rigour.   It is proved to that factor simply because the technology was developed.  I'm sure that some physicist will be dissatisfied with this and take the "proof" further.  When will we be convinced? 1 in 1,000,000,000 maybe.  The persuit of this best demonstrates that there are no proofs, but simply mounting evidence which still stands the chance of being refuted, but simply becomes less likely to succumb to this.

Answers on a postcard

OOOOMG!!!!!R3d4lert!SC13NCE GEEK!!!!

N0one\/\/4nts-A-N00blkieyuoH3R3! GoR34d YuorSuXX0rCo113geb00ks!!!
DW3333333333B!!!!!111111111111!!

StFuWtih Ur B0rInG///!!!11 G33kA$$mo-fo!

n00b!!1337, lololololol,Ug01 Fl4/\/\3D BigT1mE!

Yes I will translat, I speak broken 1337 speak.

no one wants a noob like you here Go Read your sucky college books dweeb shut the f*ck up with your boring geek ass mo-fo noob leet lol You got flamed bigtime.

he isnt tat good at the language either..

Some interesting stuff on this in a recent copy of NewScientist.  

Dark energy was supposedly formulated to explain why the expansion of the universe is accelerating.   Dark energy is equivelant to Einsteins cosmological constant stating that vacuum in space counters gravity.  This supposedly does not stand up to calculation.  Dark energy may be explained by neutrinos formed after the big bang and which have survived since they do not interact with matter in a readily measureable way.  Three types of neutrino exist and they can apparently mix, which forms the crux of this theory since neutrino mixing may solve the dark matter issue.  The vacuum of space, it is proposed, consists of neutrino particles which flash in and out of existence creating energy through their interaction with the vacuum.   This theory is supposedly testable. Accounting therefor for the lost mass.

On a related topic

E=MC squared.  One of the most well known and accepted equations (energy=massxspeed of light squared).  This has recently been proved to the factor of 1 in 2,000,000.  Previously this had only been demonstrated to 1 in 50000 through the use of adapted quantum scales.  The new result was reached by the collaboration of 2 separate research groups investigating different parts of the equation and pooling the results.  Now 1 in 50,000 is impressive and sure to convince most people, so why the neccessity to take the "proof" a leap further.  Because science recognises thst proof does not exist (sometimes) and the only goal can be rigour.   It is proved to that factor simply because the technology was developed.  I'm sure that some physicist will be dissatisfied with this and take the "proof" further.  When will we be convinced? 1 in 1,000,000,000 maybe.  The persuit of this best demonstrates that there are no proofs, but simply mounting evidence which still stands the chance of being refuted, but simply becomes less likely to succumb to this.

Answers on a postcard

Quite actually we have proof, just no undesputable we have computers and actual pictures, My uncle happens to be an astronout[thats why i came to this forum]. He has seen earth from afar it is indeed round. Now people could call me a liar, and that the computerized evidence and proof is all fake or faulty, even if it's not. The harizon is basically proof the world is round. But objects will always disapear to your eyes once they get far enouh away. I am pretty confident the world is round because acording to flat earthers you could travel straight west and end up in the south pole-like 125 foot wall. I find it hard to believe we cant reach the top of a 125 foot wall but you never know. when we go to the wall/southpole we travel south and only south, meaning it cannot encompass the whole world. I would say this disproves the FE theory but it only leads you to believe my idea.

I am 14, I want to see how many older people think my answer is now less effective because it was expressed by some one of my young age.

Quote from: "Ub3r H4xx0r"

OOOOMG!!!!!R3d4lert!SC13NCE GEEK!!!!

N0one\/\/4nts-A-N00blkieyuoH3R3! GoR34d YuorSuXX0rCo113geb00ks!!!
DW3333333333B!!!!!111111111111!!

StFuWtih Ur B0rInG///!!!11 G33kA$$mo-fo!

n00b!!1337, lololololol,Ug01 Fl4/\/\3D BigT1mE!

Yes I will translat, I speak broken 1337 speak.

no one wants a noob like you here Go Read your sucky college books dweeb shut the f*ck up with your boring geek ass mo-fo noob leet lol You got flamed bigtime.

he isnt tat good at the language either..

I knew what the turd was saying, but thanks ( I think ) for clarifying it for those that didn't!  The guys obviously a belm and you seem to be in the same court.  Forgive me if I'm wrong.

However the topic is one of the nature of dark matter/dark energy and the supposed missing mass of the universe.  So bollocks.

Answers on a postcard.

Quote from: "mikolaj_koppernigk=cojon"

Some interesting stuff on this in a recent copy of NewScientist.  

Dark energy was supposedly formulated to explain why the expansion of the universe is accelerating.   Dark energy is equivelant to Einsteins cosmological constant stating that vacuum in space counters gravity.  This supposedly does not stand up to calculation.  Dark energy may be explained by neutrinos formed after the big bang and which have survived since they do not interact with matter in a readily measureable way.  Three types of neutrino exist and they can apparently mix, which forms the crux of this theory since neutrino mixing may solve the dark matter issue.  The vacuum of space, it is proposed, consists of neutrino particles which flash in and out of existence creating energy through their interaction with the vacuum.   This theory is supposedly testable. Accounting therefor for the lost mass.

On a related topic

E=MC squared.  One of the most well known and accepted equations (energy=massxspeed of light squared).  This has recently been proved to the factor of 1 in 2,000,000.  Previously this had only been demonstrated to 1 in 50000 through the use of adapted quantum scales.  The new result was reached by the collaboration of 2 separate research groups investigating different parts of the equation and pooling the results.  Now 1 in 50,000 is impressive and sure to convince most people, so why the neccessity to take the "proof" a leap further.  Because science recognises thst proof does not exist (sometimes) and the only goal can be rigour.   It is proved to that factor simply because the technology was developed.  I'm sure that some physicist will be dissatisfied with this and take the "proof" further.  When will we be convinced? 1 in 1,000,000,000 maybe.  The persuit of this best demonstrates that there are no proofs, but simply mounting evidence which still stands the chance of being refuted, but simply becomes less likely to succumb to this.

Answers on a postcard

Quite actually we have proof, just no undesputable we have computers and actual pictures, My uncle happens to be an astronout[thats why i came to this forum]. He has seen earth from afar it is indeed round. Now people could call me a liar, and that the computerized evidence and proof is all fake or faulty, even if it's not. The harizon is basically proof the world is round. But objects will always disapear to your eyes once they get far enouh away. I am pretty confident the world is round because acording to flat earthers you could travel straight west and end up in the south pole-like 125 foot wall. I find it hard to believe we cant reach the top of a 125 foot wall but you never know. when we go to the wall/southpole we travel south and only south, meaning it cannot encompass the whole world. I would say this disproves the FE theory but it only leads you to believe my idea.

I am 14, I want to see how many older people think my answer is now less effective because it was expressed by some one of my young age.

For fucks sake

Take this post elsewhere.  This is supposedly a thread on the nature of the lost mass of the universe.  If you think your uncles alleged trip into space proves any shit then argue it in the appropriate place.  Methinks Ise wastings moise toimes heare!

Answers on a postcard

Quote from: "I are a believer"

Quote from: "mikolaj_koppernigk=cojon"

Some interesting stuff on this in a recent copy of NewScientist.  

Dark energy was supposedly formulated to explain why the expansion of the universe is accelerating.   Dark energy is equivelant to Einsteins cosmological constant stating that vacuum in space counters gravity.  This supposedly does not stand up to calculation.  Dark energy may be explained by neutrinos formed after the big bang and which have survived since they do not interact with matter in a readily measureable way.  Three types of neutrino exist and they can apparently mix, which forms the crux of this theory since neutrino mixing may solve the dark matter issue.  The vacuum of space, it is proposed, consists of neutrino particles which flash in and out of existence creating energy through their interaction with the vacuum.   This theory is supposedly testable. Accounting therefor for the lost mass.

On a related topic

E=MC squared.  One of the most well known and accepted equations (energy=massxspeed of light squared).  This has recently been proved to the factor of 1 in 2,000,000.  Previously this had only been demonstrated to 1 in 50000 through the use of adapted quantum scales.  The new result was reached by the collaboration of 2 separate research groups investigating different parts of the equation and pooling the results.  Now 1 in 50,000 is impressive and sure to convince most people, so why the neccessity to take the "proof" a leap further.  Because science recognises thst proof does not exist (sometimes) and the only goal can be rigour.   It is proved to that factor simply because the technology was developed.  I'm sure that some physicist will be dissatisfied with this and take the "proof" further.  When will we be convinced? 1 in 1,000,000,000 maybe.  The persuit of this best demonstrates that there are no proofs, but simply mounting evidence which still stands the chance of being refuted, but simply becomes less likely to succumb to this.

Answers on a postcard

Quite actually we have proof, just no undesputable we have computers and actual pictures, My uncle happens to be an astronout[thats why i came to this forum]. He has seen earth from afar it is indeed round. Now people could call me a liar, and that the computerized evidence and proof is all fake or faulty, even if it's not. The harizon is basically proof the world is round. But objects will always disapear to your eyes once they get far enouh away. I am pretty confident the world is round because acording to flat earthers you could travel straight west and end up in the south pole-like 125 foot wall. I find it hard to believe we cant reach the top of a 125 foot wall but you never know. when we go to the wall/southpole we travel south and only south, meaning it cannot encompass the whole world. I would say this disproves the FE theory but it only leads you to believe my idea.

I am 14, I want to see how many older people think my answer is now less effective because it was expressed by some one of my young age.

For fucks sake

Take this post elsewhere.  This is supposedly a thread on the nature of the lost mass of the universe.  If you think your uncles alleged trip into space proves any shit then argue it in the appropriate place.  Methinks Ise wastings moise toimes heare!

Answers on a postcard

Right dark matter and the lost mass of the universe....well Simply it is there, theres not FE explaination for it because we can see it everyday.

Right dark matter and the lost mass of the universe ... we can see it everyday.

Really... then how is it "dark" or "lost"?

Your sentence, if it was a sentence, seems to me to offer no information.

Quote from: "I are a believer"

Right dark matter and the lost mass of the universe ... we can see it everyday.

Really... then how is it "dark" or "lost"?

Your sentence, if it was a sentence, seems to me to offer no information.

The lost space that flat earthers claim isnt there. The universe and such. Look up in a starry night it seems never ending.

The lost space that flat earthers claim isnt there.

Not a sentence.

The universe and such.

Not a sentence.

Look up in a starry night it seems never ending.

Okay, here's a sentence.  But no, actually, it doesn't seem neverending.  Seems I read someplace that it was neverending.  To me, it's visually indistinguishable from a black wall with glowing white spots.  A finite black wall, a finite distance away, with a finite number of glowing white spots.  Nothing seemingly neverending about it.

So far your discourse seems to be following a (never ending?) random walk.  Could you try, instead of subtle insinuations, actual statements?  With subjects and verbs and things?  That support some conclusion, which is also in the form of a statement?

I'd appreciate it, thanks.

-Erasmus

Why are you discussing science magazines, if you read those you should really keep it to yourself!

Why are you discussing science magazines, if you read those you should really keep it to yourself!

No, if you have opinions like this one, you should really keep them to yourself.

Quote from: "I are a believer"

The lost space that flat earthers claim isnt there.

Not a sentence.

Quote

The universe and such.

Not a sentence.

Quote

Look up in a starry night it seems never ending.

Okay, here's a sentence.  But no, actually, it doesn't seem neverending.  Seems I read someplace that it was neverending.  To me, it's visually indistinguishable from a black wall with glowing white spots.  A finite black wall, a finite distance away, with a finite number of glowing white spots.  Nothing seemingly neverending about it.

So far your discourse seems to be following a (never ending?) random walk.  Could you try, instead of subtle insinuations, actual statements?  With subjects and verbs and things?  That support some conclusion, which is also in the form of a statement?

I'd appreciate it, thanks.

-Erasmus

I appologize. But how do FE members explain shooting stars? And I know I should know this by now, but do they think that the moon is also flat? And then what are the white spots that we call stars? And I do not see an exact number of "white spots" it SEEMS to be infiniate.

But how do FE members explain shooting stars?

... meteors.

[quotes]And then what are the white spots that we call stars?[/quotes]

.... stars.

And I do not see an exact number of "white spots" it SEEMS to be infiniate.

No, you've just never counted them, cuz there's a lot, and they're hard to count.

Take a long-exposure photograph of the sky.  Get a black marker.  Color in every star in the photograph.  Every time you color one in, eat a cookie.  Keep track of the number of cookies you eat.  When the whole photo is black, the number of cookies you have eaten is the number of stars you could see.

-Erasmus

And I do not see an exact number of "white spots" it SEEMS to be infiniate

If it was infinite I'm sure it would light up the entire sky, right?  Think...

Quote

And I do not see an exact number of "white spots" it SEEMS to be infiniate

If it was infinite I'm sure it would light up the entire sky, right?  Think...

If the "white spots" each had finite radius and did not overlap, then yes, they would light up the entire sky.  But that would also be impossible, as an infinite number of circles on a finite surface must overlap.  If you allow overlap, then you could allow all of them to overlap, so that there would still be black areas.

So, no.

Take a long-exposure photograph of the sky.  Get a black marker.  Color in every star in the photograph.  Every time you color one in, eat a cookie.  Keep track of the number of cookies you eat.  When the whole photo is black, the number of cookies you have eaten is the number of stars you could see.

That's perhaps the best method for counting the occurences of things that I have ever heard. Granted it has it's drawbacks, the number of cookies required, the possibility of being sick if you eat too many, as well as the fact it's quite unhealthy, but nonetheless, brilliant.