3 ms·

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. It's not an easy message to convey or understand that's for sure. I'll take this feedback and try to improve on how this come

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. It's not an easy message to convey or understand that's for sure. I'll take this feedback and try to improve on how this comes across. But how do you think all of the dark matter got removed from space after the big bang? Just because the math works, does warped space time and all that really make more sense? A fluid universe works with the same math, the same equations. Once you see that angular momentum from dark orbital systems have subtle effects at the boundary layers, it changes how things work. Hopefully I can find a way to show other people.

elmerfud 1y ago
I think the message is quite easy to understand as it's written but maybe that's not the message you want to convey. The message you're conveying makes no logical sense and doesn't seem to have any basis in testable scientific methodology. Your writing style is that of a "science communicator" and not a scientist proposing a hypothesis. As most science communicators, so much gets lost and because you have no actual scientific references it comes across as pseudoscientific nonsense with no backing whatsoever. You say the same equations work but failed to show it and failed to show it at the extremes. If the same equations work then you also have to ask yourself are you describing something different or just plugging in different values? Also I have my doubts that the equations actually work since you say that there is no speed limit. The speed of light is something that is fairly well understood. It's a measurable thing The time dilation that comes with it is also a measurable thing. Your last paragraph says there is no speed limit which would break all of the equations. If you understand what scientists are saying, no one is saying that dark matter got removed from the universe. The inability to detect something does not indicate that it is not there it only indicates that we have not found a way to detect it, but it's effects are clearly measured so a term is given because it is unknown what it is I mean. These terms of dark matter and dark energy have been seized upon by "science communicators" which oftentimes poorly explain complex topics. Then their poor explanation is seized upon by others and the understanding gets further diluted down. There was a time when black holes were this spooky thing as well that were poorly understood. Astrophysicist could clearly understand that something was there that they could not understand or comprehend but they could measure the effects of it. Given time they were able to clarify it and come up with theories to explain it. This is the state we are in with dark matter and dark energy. These are terms given to something that they know is there because all of the evidence points to something being there but they have no ability to detect it other than to see it's effects on other things. Without you putting together some hypothesis that can then be tested and verified independently what you have is sci-fi technobabble. It can be the basis for interesting storytelling like in the movie Black hole or Interstellar, but it's nothing more than fictional dreaming. Honestly, string theory is more plausible than anything you've proposed.
- jeffvroom 1y ago
  I really appreciate your thoughtful response. I'm already improving the content based on this feedback so it's super helpful. I'm a computer programmer, not a scientist and admittedly am not good at getting my point across clearly. But I do know how to model complex systems. Scientists are saying there's no dark matter on earth right? None in atoms? But if was in both places, couldn't different pressure zones in that fluid, i.e. different gravity fields affect atomic clocks in the same way as predicted by Einstein? Same fluid dynamics equations right? Does warped space time make more sense to you? How do we measure the speed of light? Isn't it in the same fluid conditions? I must really suck if 6-8 dimensions of weirdness make more sense :) This is a really challenging situation for me but again, I'm grateful to see how it breaks down in how I'm presenting it.
  - elmerfud 1y ago
    I still think you're completely misunderstanding the scientific principles and that's why you've come up with this alternate explanation. That's what's largely illogical in my mind. Because you're making statements like scientists are saying there's no dark matter on Earth. It kind of gives the impression you're not really understanding what scientists are saying when they're using the term dark matter or even dark energy. As I tried to explain before, dark matter and dark energies are simply things that scientists can see the effects of but cannot adequately point to the cause. There can be a vast number of reasons for this. Oftentimes scientists can understand and explain the effects of something and can work with it in a practical situation without understanding the causal mechanisms of it. That's what dark energy and dark matter are. It is an unaccounted for cause but the effects are there. So they're substituting in an unknown. There is efforts to solve for the unknown but I don't believe what you're doing makes any real attempt to solve for that unknown because it's not offering a true explanation of what that is with any testable hypothesis. Scientists say there's no dark matter on Earth because The gravitational forces and interactions on the Earth and in our solar system we are able to explain by observable things. The universe is so large and so vast it contains many non-observable things and as time proceeds forward more things move beyond the observable horizon that we have. That does not mean we cannot observe the effects but we cannot observe the cause once it is moved beyond the horizon. Again I'm going to point back to black holes. For a long time they were simply hypothetical objects used to explain observations that had no better explanation at the time. After enough research They were able to confirm that these are real things where there is a gravitational singularity so strong the light can't escape. I'm not sure why you keep going back to a fluid dynamics equations which would all be based upon Newtonian physics which are known to break down. So yes Einstein's equations make more sense. I suggest you look up the history of the planet Vulcan which was needed to fill in the gaps to explain the orbits in our solar system using Newtonian physics. Einstein's equations eliminated the need for it. Yes warped space-time makes infinitely more sense than trying to think of it as fluid dynamics. I'm really not sure where you're getting a six to eight dimensions from as that sounds more like string theory. Of course if you examine string theory it's also out there without any real testable repeatable hypothesis to back it up. Spending 2 weeks to understand something that people have spent a lifetime on is going to present you with lots of challenges. Mostly in the fact that having a skill set that allows you to model things is probably not enough to actually understand enough about the universe to model it. It kind of seems like you're saying that physics works different in different places for the reasons of pressure zones. I don't see any explanation for what the pressure zones are or what causes them or anything else. Einstein's theory of gravitation warping the fabric of space-time does provide an explanation. I think if you can understand that dark matter and dark energy are simply terms that are used for tracking an unknown. The way those are arrived at is by observing the interactions of all of the things then accounting for all of the observable things that can influence the interactions and calculating the remainder. to make an analogy, that you're very fond of doing, think of it as putting together a puzzle. You know what the puzzle should look like but someone has scattered the pieces all throughout your house. You've only been able to assemble 20% of the puzzle because you haven't found the rest of the pieces yet. Those pieces are not observable to you until you find them. Just because those pieces are lost to you at the moment doesn't mean that the picture of the puzzle is incorrect.

elmerfud 1y ago

I think the message is quite easy to understand as it's written but maybe that's not the message you want to convey. The message you're conveying makes no logical sense and doesn't seem to have any basis in testable scientific methodology. Your writing style is that of a "science communicator" and not a scientist proposing a hypothesis. As most science communicators, so much gets lost and because you have no actual scientific references it comes across as pseudoscientific nonsense with no backing whatsoever. You say the same equations work but failed to show it and failed to show it at the extremes. If the same equations work then you also have to ask yourself are you describing something different or just plugging in different values? Also I have my doubts that the equations actually work since you say that there is no speed limit. The speed of light is something that is fairly well understood. It's a measurable thing The time dilation that comes with it is also a measurable thing. Your last paragraph says there is no speed limit which would break all of the equations. If you understand what scientists are saying, no one is saying that dark matter got removed from the universe. The inability to detect something does not indicate that it is not there it only indicates that we have not found a way to detect it, but it's effects are clearly measured so a term is given because it is unknown what it is I mean. These terms of dark matter and dark energy have been seized upon by "science communicators" which oftentimes poorly explain complex topics. Then their poor explanation is seized upon by others and the understanding gets further diluted down. There was a time when black holes were this spooky thing as well that were poorly understood. Astrophysicist could clearly understand that something was there that they could not understand or comprehend but they could measure the effects of it. Given time they were able to clarify it and come up with theories to explain it. This is the state we are in with dark matter and dark energy. These are terms given to something that they know is there because all of the evidence points to something being there but they have no ability to detect it other than to see it's effects on other things. Without you putting together some hypothesis that can then be tested and verified independently what you have is sci-fi technobabble. It can be the basis for interesting storytelling like in the movie Black hole or Interstellar, but it's nothing more than fictional dreaming. Honestly, string theory is more plausible than anything you've proposed.

jeffvroom 1y ago
I really appreciate your thoughtful response. I'm already improving the content based on this feedback so it's super helpful. I'm a computer programmer, not a scientist and admittedly am not good at getting my point across clearly. But I do know how to model complex systems. Scientists are saying there's no dark matter on earth right? None in atoms? But if was in both places, couldn't different pressure zones in that fluid, i.e. different gravity fields affect atomic clocks in the same way as predicted by Einstein? Same fluid dynamics equations right? Does warped space time make more sense to you? How do we measure the speed of light? Isn't it in the same fluid conditions? I must really suck if 6-8 dimensions of weirdness make more sense :) This is a really challenging situation for me but again, I'm grateful to see how it breaks down in how I'm presenting it.
- elmerfud 1y ago
  I still think you're completely misunderstanding the scientific principles and that's why you've come up with this alternate explanation. That's what's largely illogical in my mind. Because you're making statements like scientists are saying there's no dark matter on Earth. It kind of gives the impression you're not really understanding what scientists are saying when they're using the term dark matter or even dark energy. As I tried to explain before, dark matter and dark energies are simply things that scientists can see the effects of but cannot adequately point to the cause. There can be a vast number of reasons for this. Oftentimes scientists can understand and explain the effects of something and can work with it in a practical situation without understanding the causal mechanisms of it. That's what dark energy and dark matter are. It is an unaccounted for cause but the effects are there. So they're substituting in an unknown. There is efforts to solve for the unknown but I don't believe what you're doing makes any real attempt to solve for that unknown because it's not offering a true explanation of what that is with any testable hypothesis. Scientists say there's no dark matter on Earth because The gravitational forces and interactions on the Earth and in our solar system we are able to explain by observable things. The universe is so large and so vast it contains many non-observable things and as time proceeds forward more things move beyond the observable horizon that we have. That does not mean we cannot observe the effects but we cannot observe the cause once it is moved beyond the horizon. Again I'm going to point back to black holes. For a long time they were simply hypothetical objects used to explain observations that had no better explanation at the time. After enough research They were able to confirm that these are real things where there is a gravitational singularity so strong the light can't escape. I'm not sure why you keep going back to a fluid dynamics equations which would all be based upon Newtonian physics which are known to break down. So yes Einstein's equations make more sense. I suggest you look up the history of the planet Vulcan which was needed to fill in the gaps to explain the orbits in our solar system using Newtonian physics. Einstein's equations eliminated the need for it. Yes warped space-time makes infinitely more sense than trying to think of it as fluid dynamics. I'm really not sure where you're getting a six to eight dimensions from as that sounds more like string theory. Of course if you examine string theory it's also out there without any real testable repeatable hypothesis to back it up. Spending 2 weeks to understand something that people have spent a lifetime on is going to present you with lots of challenges. Mostly in the fact that having a skill set that allows you to model things is probably not enough to actually understand enough about the universe to model it. It kind of seems like you're saying that physics works different in different places for the reasons of pressure zones. I don't see any explanation for what the pressure zones are or what causes them or anything else. Einstein's theory of gravitation warping the fabric of space-time does provide an explanation. I think if you can understand that dark matter and dark energy are simply terms that are used for tracking an unknown. The way those are arrived at is by observing the interactions of all of the things then accounting for all of the observable things that can influence the interactions and calculating the remainder. to make an analogy, that you're very fond of doing, think of it as putting together a puzzle. You know what the puzzle should look like but someone has scattered the pieces all throughout your house. You've only been able to assemble 20% of the puzzle because you haven't found the rest of the pieces yet. Those pieces are not observable to you until you find them. Just because those pieces are lost to you at the moment doesn't mean that the picture of the puzzle is incorrect.