What's wrong with physics?

[metis]

Yes it´s a nice theory of how the scientific methods works.

Sadly, the scientists forgot to use it before they invented *dark matter*.

Believe in whatever you want to believe, I guess. Those of us who work in one or more of the fields of science know that what you say above simply is not true.

 

[Native]

Those of us who work in one or more of the fields of science know that what you say above simply is not true.

What? Have you forgotten how *dark matter* was invented without using the strict scientific metod of revising a hypothesis and discarding this when contradicted by observations?

 

[night912]

Native said: ↑
Where excactly did she mention the EU theory? Give me the timestamp please.


Because you mentioned the EU Theory in this sentense below where you refer to Sabine Hossenfelder.

I did no such thing. Look below.

A thing that she mentioned as being one of the cause slowing the advancement of physics is, what you said above. Too many physicists are wasting time in coming up with new ideas and trying to find the solution for a problem while at the same time tries to make it into a replacement for past theories, only to end up being wrong. An example would be the EU Theory, which attempts to solve the current problems while also attempt at replacing the current working gravitational theories. Instead she is suggesting that physicists should keep the current working gravitational theories and move to things such as quantum gravity, an area where current gravitational theories are not applicable.

Reading comprehension is important. I presented one of her point, followed by an example of what she's talking. Since you didn't understand what she said in the video, I thought that if I was to provide an example to go along with her point, it might be possible for you to understand what she said. My attempt at simplifying it so that others can have a better understanding of what's being pointed out, apparently, has no effect on those who lack any reading comprehension skills.


Physics is not the only thing that requires you to think before coming up with a conclusion.

Are you an expert in any EU theories?

Are you?

Don't worry, there's no need for you to start panicking just yet. All you have to do is be honest and say that you are not an expert, now you can start panicking.

Being an expert is not required for this discussion because those pseudoscientific theories are not what is being discussed here. Someone having basic reading comprehension skills would have realized that.

With that said, are you willing to continue this discussion and actually address my points, or are you just going to continue with your strawman?

 

[metis]

What? Have you forgotten how *dark matter* was invented without using the strict scientific metod of revising a hypothesis and discarding this when contradicted by observations?

As usual, you're spouting nonsense:
Dark matter is a form of matter thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe and about a quarter of its total mass–energy density or about 2.241×10−27 kg/m3. Its presence is implied in a variety of astrophysical observations, including gravitational effects that cannot be explained by accepted theories of gravity unless more matter is present than can be seen. For this reason, most experts think that dark matter is abundant in the universe and that it has had a strong influence on its structure and evolution. Dark matter is called dark because it does not appear to interact with the electromagnetic field, which means it does not absorb, reflect or emit electromagnetic radiation, and is therefore difficult to detect.[1]

Primary evidence for dark matter comes from calculations showing that many galaxies would fly apart, or that they would not have formed or would not move as they do, if they did not contain a large amount of unseen matter.[2] Other lines of evidence include observations in gravitational lensing[3] and in the cosmic microwave background, along with astronomical observations of the observable universe's current structure, the formation and evolution of galaxies, mass location during galactic collisions,[4] and the motion of galaxies within galaxy clusters. In the standard Lambda-CDM model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the universe contains 5% ordinary matter and energy, 27% dark matter and 68% of a form of energy known as dark energy.[5][6][7][8] Thus, dark matter constitutes 85%[a] of total mass, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95% of total mass–energy content.[9][10][11][12]... -- Dark matter - Wikipedia

 

[Polymath257]

Why don´t you explain HOW and WHY *dark matter* showed up in the scientific minds at the first place, before you´re continuing the dark speculations with all kinds of *small nothings*?

Once again, neutrinos are an example of 'small, dark nothings'. And we *know* they exist. So the idea that some larger cousin particle could constitute dark matter isn't so unreasonable.

Such particles even fit into natural extensions of the standard model, either as supersymmetric partners, axions (a sort of 'double photon'), or other massive subatomic particles.

And, it is a *natural* and *productive* technique to see, when observations and theory don't align, to ask if you simply missed something not previously known. It happens with Neptune (with gravity!). It happened with neutrinos. It is always *one* option to be considered.

And, in this case, the hypothesis has worked to explain *other* phenomena than what it was originally proposed for. THAT makes it something to take seriously. And the fact that particle physics easily allowed for such massive, dark particles made it all the more reasonable.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes it´s a nice theory of how the scientific methods works.

Sadly, the scientists forgot to use it before they invented *dark matter*.

On the contrary, they have been using it.

On the opposite side, you are advocating that gravity be dispensed with ENTIRELY, which is strongly against actual observations. You claim that things fall due to the weight of air. Again, something strongly contradicted by observations.

You are straining at a gnat while swallowing a log.

 

[Polymath257]

Why don´t you explain HOW and WHY *dark matter* showed up in the scientific minds at the first place, before you´re continuing the dark speculations with all kinds of *small nothings*?

I thought I just did.

A discrepancy between observations and theory was found. There are *two* ways to proceed from this:

1. Either say we missed something OR

2. Change the basic theory.

In ALMOST EVERY case, the reason theory and observation differ is because of 1: we missed something.

In the case of stellar motions in galaxies, there was a LONG history of discrepancies being due to some extra mass existing that had not been known before: that is how Neptune was discovered.

So, to postulate some extra mass that was not previously known was completely appropriate and in line with historical successes.

As particle physics progressed, examples were found that do NOT interact with light: they are dark. ONE example is that of neutrinos. So the possibility of extra mass being a result of some new subatomic particle was quite reasonable and something to be investigated.

Furthermore, the hypothesis of extra, unseen mass, had OTHER consequences that were subsequently observed. This is confirmation of the original hypothesis. Also, other possibilities for this 'missing mass', such as white dwarfs, small black holes, etc, were eliminated by *actual observations*. This increased the possibility that a new subatomic particle was involved, which made the problem much more interesting.

Also, alternative explanations (change the theory) were considered: MOND, for example, had some success in producing results that agree with observations, but it has some very ad hoc aspects to it. When the Bullet cluster data came out, MOND was found to *also* require some missing mass. So in *either* case, some sort of missing mass was there.

This is how science works: we find some hypotheses that agree with observations and use those to propose new observations as tests. Those hypotheses that pass such tests gain in stature. Those that don't lose stature.

In the case of dark matter, the differences between observation and theory lead to a *hypothesis* of extra matter. That hypothesis was made more reasonable by aspects of particle physics and was also supported by other types of observation. We still do not know *which* subatomic particle is responsible for this extra mass. ONE possibility that was considered were neutrinos: there are a LOT of them, they are 'dark' (don't interact with light), and have some other properties associated with dark matter. It turns out that neutrinos were excluded because of the effects on galaxy formation.

But, the basic idea that there is extra mass that we cannot see is completely appropriate given the history and connection to other areas of physics. It is also in agreement with a range of observations.

To compare, your favorite theory, EU makes NO predictions of new observations. It has NO way to explain even the motion of planets in our solar system. It has no details on how to explain the motions of stars, and it is frankly contradicted by numerous observations.

 

[blü 2]

If you don´t follow a suggested link, then I really don´t care what you´re here for. And if you cannot deduce anything from my written sentenses, I also don´t care anymore.

For the last time!

FOR THE LAST TIME: What specific arguments do the scientists use to say that's wrong?

IF YOU DON'T KNOW, JUST SAY SO.

 

[Native]

Reading comprehension is important. I presented one of her point, followed by an example of what she's talking. Since you didn't understand what she said in the video, I thought that if I was to provide an example to go along with her point, it might be possible for you to understand what she said. My attempt at simplifying it so that others can have a better understanding of what's being pointed out, apparently, has no effect on those who lack any reading comprehension skills.

Maybe you should look at the OP in this thread once again in where Sabine Hossenfeld criticise the standing scientific systems itself?

Maybe then you can understand what this OP it´s all about.

 

[Native]

As usual, you're spouting nonsense:
Dark matter is a form of matter thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe and about a quarter of its total mass–energy density or about 2.241×10−27 kg/m3. Its presence is implied in a variety of astrophysical observations, including gravitational effects that cannot be explained by accepted theories of gravity unless more matter is present than can be seen. For this reason, most experts think that dark matter is abundant in the universe and that it has had a strong influence on its structure and evolution. Dark matter is called dark because it does not appear to interact with the electromagnetic field, which means it does not absorb, reflect or emit electromagnetic radiation, and is therefore difficult to detect.[1]

Primary evidence for dark matter comes from calculations showing that many galaxies would fly apart, or that they would not have formed or would not move as they do, if they did not contain a large amount of unseen matter.[2] Other lines of evidence include observations in gravitational lensing[3] and in the cosmic microwave background, along with astronomical observations of the observable universe's current structure, the formation and evolution of galaxies, mass location during galactic collisions,[4] and the motion of galaxies within galaxy clusters. In the standard Lambda-CDM model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the universe contains 5% ordinary matter and energy, 27% dark matter and 68% of a form of energy known as dark energy.[5][6][7][8] Thus, dark matter constitutes 85%[a] of total mass, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95% of total mass–energy content.[9][10][11][12]... -- Dark matter - Wikipedia

You forget the galactic history of the invention of *dark matter*

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Yes it´s a nice theory of how the scientific methods works.
Sadly, the scientists forgot to use it before they invented *dark matter*.

On the contrary, they have been using it.

Inventing dark things is not science at all. As with Newtons *occult agency* too.

On the opposite side, you are advocating that gravity be dispensed with ENTIRELY, which is strongly against actual observations. You claim that things fall due to the weight of air. Again, something strongly contradicted by observations.

It´s only *contradicted* by the standing *ASSUMPTIONS* based on Newtons 350 year old *occult agencies*.

 

[Native]

1. Either say we missed something OR

2. Change the basic theory.

In ALMOST EVERY case, the reason theory and observation differ is because of 1: we missed something.

Correct. And the next questions is WHY our laws misses something and are there other laws which can explain WHY we misses something? You can´t solve this just by inventing some *dark stuff* to patch the misses.

Also, alternative explanations (change the theory) were considered: MOND, for example, had some success in producing results that agree with observations, but it has some very ad hoc aspects to it. When the Bullet cluster data came out, MOND was found to *also* require some missing mass. So in *either* case, some sort of missing mass was there.

Of course MOND *failed* as it falied to completely discard the particle = mass = gravity speculations. There are NO missing mass - only missing perceptions of cosmos.

But, the basic idea that there is extra mass that we cannot see is completely appropriate given the history and connection to other areas of physics. It is also in agreement with a range of observations.

Having a knowledge of only 4 % of the contents in the observable Universe is not much of *with a range of observations*, in my opinion.

To compare, your favorite theory, EU makes NO predictions of new observations.

Of course a genuine EU theory doesn´t! In contrary to the standing methods the EU doesn´t invent anything new. What the EU does, is to explain more logical and natural what is going on without inventing unseen stuff and energy.

It has NO way to explain even the motion of planets in our solar system. It has no details on how to explain the motions of stars, and it is frankly contradicted by numerous observations.

Once you´ve fully accepted and incorporated in your mind that atoms have E&M qualities, you´ll understand that the E&M forces provides both rotation and orbital perpendicular motions everywhere, even in our Solar System and our galaxy.

You can only *contradict* this fact by staying in the black gravity box and denying the very facts.

 

[Polymath257]

Correct. And the next questions is WHY our laws misses something and are there other laws which can explain WHY we misses something? You can´t solve this just by inventing some *dark stuff* to patch the misses.

Like proposing the 'dark' planet Neptune? Absolutely, yes we can.

Of course MOND *failed* as it falied to completely discard the particle = mass = gravity speculations. There are NO missing mass - only missing perceptions of cosmos.

Having a knowledge of only 4 % of the contents in the observable Universe is not much of *with a range of observations*, in my opinion.

Of course a genuine EU theory doesn´t! In contrary to the standing methods the EU doesn´t invent anything new. What the EU does, is to explain more logical and natural what is going on without inventing unseen stuff and energy.

In other words, it doesn't do ANYTHING. Unless it can explain actual observations *in detail* (meaning to at least a couple of decimal places of accuracy), then it is worthless.

Once you´ve fully accepted and incorporated in your mind that atoms have E&M qualities,

Yes, everyone knows that atoms have 'E&M qualities'. The whole of our understanding of chemistry is based on that.

you´ll understand that the E&M forces provides both rotation and orbital perpendicular motions everywhere, even in our Solar System and our galaxy.

No, that is not the case. Based on what we know about E&M (Maxwell's equations, etc), we know that this is precisely NOT what happens with E&M.

You can only *contradict* this fact by staying in the black gravity box and denying the very facts.

Or by actual observations and calculations. E&M alone simply doesn't explain what we see. Your denial of gravity in the face of ALL the evidence automatically puts your ideas into the 'not even worth investigating' realm. Until you can explain why things fall on Earth and also on the Moon (no air there), you have NOTHING at all.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
Yes it´s a nice theory of how the scientific methods works.
Sadly, the scientists forgot to use it before they invented *dark matter*.

Inventing dark things is not science at all. As with Newtons *occult agency* too.

Yes, of course it is science! There have been *many* times that proposing that we missed something and using that to determine the properties of what we missed has been how we advanced out understanding. You have yet to deal with how we found Neptune, for example.

It´s only *contradicted* by the standing *ASSUMPTIONS* based on Newtons 350 year old *occult agencies*.

No, it is contradicted by the actual observations. If *your* assumptions were correct, we would NOT see what we actually see.

You claim that things fall because of the weight of the air above them. This is directly contradicted by, for example, things falling on the Moon. it is directly contradicted by the fact that things fall in a vacuum. it is directly contradicted by the fact that air is a fluid and so air pressure doesn't just 'come from the top'.

No 'gravity assumptions' are required to do these observations and see that your ideas are not in agreementt with reality.

 

[Native]

I said:
"Once you´ve fully accepted and incorporated in your mind that atoms have E&M qualities, you´ll understand that the E&M forces provides both rotation and orbital perpendicular motions everywhere, even in our Solar System and our galaxy"

No, that is not the case. Based on what we know about E&M (Maxwell's equations, etc), we know that this is precisely NOT what happens with E&M.

IMO you (you too) are the victim of the later specified scientific branches which had/have their focus on just one part of the E&M qualities.

Already back in 1870 it was stated that the Maxwell E&M equations unified the E&M to be 1 force.

You´re obviously outdated perceptions about the E&M makes your arguments against the E&M very untrustworthy - and this also goes when you´re taking the other outdated perceptions of Newtons *occult agency* to count as a force at all.

 

[Polymath257]

I said:
"Once you´ve fully accepted and incorporated in your mind that atoms have E&M qualities, you´ll understand that the E&M forces provides both rotation and orbital perpendicular motions everywhere, even in our Solar System and our galaxy"

IMO you (you too) are the victim of the later specified scientific branches which had/have their focus on just one part of the E&M qualities.

Already back in 1870 it was stated that the Maxwell E&M equations unified the E&M to be 1 force.

You´re obviously outdated perceptions about the E&M makes your arguments against the E&M very untrustworthy - and this also goes when you´re taking the other outdated perceptions of Newtons *occult agency* to count as a force at all.

Yes, Maxwell's equations unified the electrical force and the magnetic force into one force: the E&M force.

And yes, the E&M force has been unified with the weak nuclear force. That is called the electro-weak force for those studying that unification.

So?

 

[Native]

Yes, Maxwell's equations unified the electrical force and the magnetic force into one force: the E&M force.

And yes, the E&M force has been unified with the weak nuclear force. That is called the electro-weak force for those studying that unification.

So?

I said above that:

Once you´ve fully accepted and incorporated in your mind that atoms have E&M qualities, you´ll understand that the E&M forces provides both rotation and orbital perpendicular motions everywhere, even in our Solar System and our galaxy.

So, why do you deny the obvious implications of this unified E&M force and how it works, as you do here:

No, that is not the case. Based on what we know about E&M (Maxwell's equations, etc), we know that this is precisely NOT what happens with E&M.

How many definitions do you have of the unified E&M force which is defined as ONE already back in 1870?

If you and the entire consensus science cannot define, calculate or percieve the once unified E&M force to count everywhere and no matter where in todays science, it logically points to a serious scientific perception fault and to yet another reason to *What´s wrong with physics* according to this OP thread.

 

[Polymath257]

I said above that:

So, why do you deny the obvious implications of this unified E&M force and how it works, as you do here:

Because that isn't how the E&M force works. it is NOT the one producing rotations.

How many definitions do you have of the unified E&M force which is defined as ONE already back in 1870?

The E&M force described by Maxwell unified *electric* and *magnetic* phenomena, which were previously seen as separate things.

But Maxwell did NOT, for example, unify E&M with the weak force, the strong force, or with gravity. The first two were unknown when Maxwell worked. And gravity *still* has not been unified with the others.

The electro-weak theory managed to unify the description of E&M and the weak nuclear force into one set of equations. that description has been extensively verified and is now accepted science.

But, the unification of the electro-weak and the strong force is still an active area of research, especially in attempting to verify the predictions of the Standard Model (which is that unification).

If you and the entire consensus science cannot define, calculate or percieve the once unified E&M force to count everywhere and no matter where in todays science, it logically points to a serious scientific perception fault and to yet another reason to *What´s wrong with physics* according to this OP thread.

Sorry, but the unification of those descriptions does NOT do what you seem to think it does. It does NOT give an accurate description of galactic motion, for example. You need to have gravity for that.

The serious perception fault seems to be on the part of those who believe in EU and the exclusion of gravity.

 

[metis]

You forget the galactic history of the invention of *dark matter*

Science is an accumulative process whereas evidence builds on top of other evidence. Thus, one simply cannot base any conclusive argument whatsoever on "Well, several decades ago, ...".

 

[night912]

Maybe you should look at the OP in this thread once again in where Sabine Hossenfeld criticise the standing scientific systems itself?

Maybe then you can understand what this OP it´s all about.

Just like what I predicted. That's one more theory of mine that was correct.

2. Saying that I didn't understand what she said, does nothing to show that you understood what she was talking about.