Thread: Scientific Mysteries

Originally Posted by Xei

It's semantics. If you define matter as stuff with mass, and by mass you mean something which accelerates other masses, then by definition what we're observing is invisible matter.

I fail to see how this defines "matter" as "observation".

Originally Posted by Xei

It's hard to see what the difference is between two models with the same empirical consequences.

That makes sense. Is the world round or flat? It's irrelevant because it has the same empirical consequences.

No it doesn't.

Originally Posted by sloth

I fail to see how this defines "matter" as "observation".

You should fail to see how that defines matter as observation because that wasn't what he was doing. He was saying that dark matter is causing regular, observable matter to accelerate at a rate much faster than it would normally be on its own. This phenomenon more than suggests that something beyond our observational capabilities (at least directly) is the cause for this acceleration. Because an essential element in acceleration is mass, some form of matter must be the cause. Thus the concept of dark matter was constructed.

I'm not meaning to sound like a dick or condescending, but most of your arguments indicate you have very little knowledge on these subjects. Right now you are arguing with common sense, and so far it is failing you. Take the time to do some research; these are very interesting subjects. My guess is you probably won't regret it.

That's the most fascinating thing about dark energy and dark matter, we can only see its effects. We can't "see" dark energy or dark matter with any technology known - its bizarre

You don't need to get into deep-space-time-continuum stuff to find scientific mysteries. There's a LOT we don't know even about what goes on below the earth's crust.

Also, the shower curtain effect doesn't have conclusive theory to it; only various hypotheses.

Originally Posted by snoop

You should I'm not meaning to sound like a dick or condescending, but most of your arguments indicate you have very little knowledge on these subjects. Right now you are arguing with common sense, and so far it is failing you. Take the time to do some research; these are very interesting subjects. My guess is you probably won't regret it.

I wasn't trying to hide that fact. I am "arguing" with common sense, because that's what I have at my disposal. I'm bad at studying. :-\. I am "arguing" in order to learn. I know that Xei knows more from the physics textbook than I do, and as long as he doesn't mind sharing that knowledge, I'm going to soak up as much as I can. I don't take this information as absolute knowledge, because that would be foolish, but it is interesting to learn what the science book THINKs about the nature of our reality. Just because I'm challenging what he says doesn't mean that I believe he is wrong. I merely am looking for a version of his statements that makes sense to me.

However, I don't need to be a physicist to follow logic. I appreciate your advice, but I'm doing just fine over here. lol Honestly, I would much rather follow my own logic and intuition than simply accept what everybody else believes.
My common sense arguments are not failing, because they are helping me to convey my curiosities. I don't care if I'm able to prove anything or not. I'm really not trying to. My arguments are serving the purpose that they are intended to serve.

What do you mean that wasn't what he was doing? He said "Dark matter is the observation", so he is defining dark matter as an observation, is he not?
He did not say that dark matter is causing regular, observable matter to accelerate at a rate much faster than it would normally be on its own.
He said "Dark matter is the observation..." meaning that Dark matter is a process in our brains. If that was just poor wording, that's fine. I'm not trying to be an ass about it. I'm just trying to figure out what he meant.

I understand that objects are moving away from the center at an accelerated rate, so we have decided that dark matter must exist, and all of that. I agree that this is most likely the cause. However, I am still skeptical, as there is no outside evidence of this. That was my point, but Xei says that dark matter isn't matter, so now I'm confused.

As far as I know, so far, dark matter is matter, according to theory. Dark matter is not an observation.

Am I wrong?

I like the idea that gravity is a force of quantum entanglement, my brother (astrophysicist) tried explaining it to me, but it was very hard to visualize. Off course it is only a hypothesis.
Also, talking about interference patterns, the brightest spot on an object like your finger for example is on the side opposite the light source due to the light interfering with itself.
It's pretty interesting how even only one photon can produce the same interference pattern as can a light beam.

Another mystery is the sun. I just saw the latest image taken of the suns surface using the coronal imager and wow they are amazing. To think they can reach 7million degrees. I mean sure we might know how it works but it's hard to truly visualize what is actually going on.

Lastly I've read of that whole minus temperature thing, while it seems really cool, I wonder if it really is significant or is just a twist on a definition.

"There have always been men to defend the rights of the irrational. The tradition of what may be called humiliated thought has never ceased to exist. The criticism of rationalism has been made so often that it seems unnecessary to begin again. Yet our epoch is marked by the rebirth of those paradoxical systems that strive to trip up the reason as if truly it had always forged ahead. But that is not so much the proof of the efficacy of the reason as of the intensity of its hopes."

Albert Camus

You realise how useless that is without context..?

The purpose of communicating is to communicate. But I doubt anybody can work out what you're referring to and I doubt you expected them to. So why did you post?

I think the reference is pretty clear. But I'm glad you think it's not.

It's not going to do any good to land on Mars if we're stupid.
Ray Bradbury

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I think the reference is pretty clear. But I'm glad you think it's not.

So your sole motivation for posting that was not to engender new knowledge understanding in anybody, but by your own admission the exact converse; to exhibit something that nobody else was able to extract meaning from other than yourself.

Um, no. I'm glad you didn't understand what I meant. I was not trying to be vague for everyone else. But I think you are a presumptuous brat and I love fucking with you

I think you're both right.
(I'm not perfect either.)

I am here... OP is screwing with people way before I got here. Haha.

Anyways, I think that the most interesting part of science is that there is a stopping point for every part of our science. By this I mean we know how something works, but we don't know why.

Look at any part of science and go down the why's. In every part there is a place you will hit that we don't know the "why." It seems like something small, but if that part wasn't true, the whole thing falls apart. Not explaining myself very well here, I need a nap. I hope yall understand, if not I will give you an example later.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Um, no. I'm glad you didn't understand what I meant. I was not trying to be vague for everyone else. But I think you are a presumptuous brat and I love fucking with you

Okay well enjoy your report for trolling/insulting.

If somebody understands how your quotation was relevant to the thread, I'm sure we'll see them speak up, won't we?

Originally Posted by Xei

Okay well enjoy your report for trolling/insulting.

If somebody understands how your quotation was relevant to the thread, I'm sure we'll see them speak up, won't we?

You reported that? lol!

Sure. I find a lot of what OP says to be questionable and infuriating, but the line's drawn at what was basically just aggressive bullying. There's never any justification for that.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

"There have always been men to defend the rights of the irrational. The tradition of what may be called humiliated thought has never ceased to exist. The criticism of rationalism has been made so often that it seems unnecessary to begin again. Yet our epoch is marked by the rebirth of those paradoxical systems that strive to trip up the reason as if truly it had always forged ahead. But that is not so much the proof of the efficacy of the reason as of the intensity of its hopes."

Albert Camus

Don't like science, get out of thread.

Originally Posted by Xei

Sure. I find a lot of what OP says to be questionable and infuriating, but the line's drawn at what was basically just aggressive bullying. There's never any justification for that.

I know someone who used to be the same way...

I honestly did not see that on this post, but I am also unfamiliar with OP, and I do not know his history here, and I assumed that he was joking around.
Anyway, unimportant. I was just surprised. That's all. If OP was being serious, then I certainly see your point.

According to my cell bio prof., the precise method of how mitochondria, chloroplasts, and even the nucleus of a cell came to exist as part of the normal cell structure as we currently know it is still a mystery. The narrative I've heard is that mitochondria were swallowed up and made part of the cell, which gave it a selective advantage. A similar narrative might be true of chloroplasts as well.

The most intriguing thing was that the nucleus may have just been a virus that ended up in a cell. Weird.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

The most intriguing thing was that the nucleus may have just been a virus that ended up in a cell. Weird.

I like that.

Never heard that about the nucleus... I guess it kind of depends on what you mean. Not sure how it'd work though.