Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #727704 > unrolled thread

What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ? Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2019-02-16 19:04 -0800
    Re: What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2019-02-16 19:44 -0800
    Re: What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-17 05:57 -0500
    Re: What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-02-17 10:03 -0800
    Re: What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2019-02-17 14:46 -0800
      Re: What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-02-17 17:16 -0800
        Re: What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ? Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-22 09:49 -0600
    Re: What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-21 17:03 +1100
      Staring into the "hot fire" of the microwave background. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2019-02-21 00:48 -0800
        Re: Staring into the "hot fire" of the microwave background. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-21 20:18 +1100
        Re: Staring into the "hot fire" of the microwave background. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2019-02-21 12:02 -0800
      Re: What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2019-02-21 23:40 -0800
        Re: What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-22 19:20 +1100
          Re: What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ? Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2019-02-22 01:44 -0800
          Re: What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ? Wade Alvarado <waal@ocwf4ds.ic> - 2019-02-22 14:49 +0000
            Re: What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-23 09:03 +1100
              Re: What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2019-02-22 19:45 -0800
              Re: What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ? Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2019-02-23 04:33 -0800
          Re: What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2019-02-22 10:39 -0800
            Re: What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2019-02-23 10:24 -0800
              Re: What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ? "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-02-23 13:30 -0500
              Re: What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2019-02-23 23:42 -0800
          Re: What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2019-02-22 10:51 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#727704 — What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ?

95% of our galaxy is "dark matter" ( unseen mass );
it's spherical, like earth, not a disk,
and it's denser in the middle, like earth.

What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ?
Just because we haven't seen it, doesn't mean it isn't viewable.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#727707

On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 10:04:55 PM UTC-5, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> 95% of our galaxy is "dark matter" ( unseen mass );
> it's spherical, like earth, not a disk,
> and it's denser in the middle, like earth.
> 
> What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ?
> Just because we haven't seen it, doesn't mean it isn't viewable.


We see using the EM Radiation.  Dark Matter is called
dark because it doesn't interact with EM radiation.
So you are somewhat right. We do not yet have the
means to view it so you could say we are "blind"
to dark matter, but that just says more about us
as observers rather than telling us something about
the dark matter.

Perhaps someday, we might see dark matter interactions
by detecting associated gravity waves.
And it has a measurable effect on galactic motion.

Enjoy.
Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#727718

On 2/16/2019 10:04 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> 95% of our galaxy is "dark matter" ( unseen mass );
> it's spherical, like earth, not a disk,
> and it's denser in the middle, like earth.
> 
> What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ?
> Just because we haven't seen it, doesn't mean it isn't viewable.
> 
Could mean it doesn't exist, though.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#727744

On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 7:04:55 PM UTC-8, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> 95% of our galaxy is "dark matter" ( unseen mass );
> it's spherical, like earth, not a disk,
> and it's denser in the middle, like earth.
> 
> What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ?
> Just because we haven't seen it, doesn't mean it isn't viewable.

Should be everywhere. Should be on Earth... so where is it hiding?
God creates gravity.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#727769

On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 7:04:55 PM UTC-8, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> 95% of our galaxy is "dark matter" ( unseen mass );
> it's spherical, like earth, not a disk,
> and it's denser in the middle, like earth.
> 
> What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ?
> Just because we haven't seen it, doesn't mean it isn't viewable.


More like 95% change that the law of gravitation as we know it is wrong!

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#727795

On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 2:46:23 PM UTC-8, Double-A wrote:
> On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 7:04:55 PM UTC-8, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> > 95% of our galaxy is "dark matter" ( unseen mass );
> > it's spherical, like earth, not a disk,
> > and it's denser in the middle, like earth.
> > 
> > What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ?
> > Just because we haven't seen it, doesn't mean it isn't viewable.
> 
> 
> More like 95% change that the law of gravitation as we know it is wrong!
> 
> Double-A

New gravity is better than a failed dark physics...
God creates gravity.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#728704

On 2/17/2019 7:16 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 2:46:23 PM UTC-8, Double-A wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 7:04:55 PM UTC-8, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>>> 95% of our galaxy is "dark matter" ( unseen mass );
>>> it's spherical, like earth, not a disk,
>>> and it's denser in the middle, like earth.
>>>
>>> What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ?
>>> Just because we haven't seen it, doesn't mean it isn't viewable.
>>
>>
>> More like 95% change that the law of gravitation as we know it is wrong!
>>
>> Double-A
> 
> New gravity is better than a failed dark physics...
> God creates gravity.
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
> 

New Gravity is 20% better, and lower cost.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#728424

On 17/02/2019 2:04 pm, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> 95% of our galaxy is "dark matter" ( unseen mass );
> it's spherical, like earth, not a disk,
> and it's denser in the middle, like earth.
> 
> What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ?
> Just because we haven't seen it, doesn't mean it isn't viewable.
> 

What do you mean by this?

a) Dark matter emits light, but it all just happens to be blocked from 
our view by other matter?

b) Dark matter emits light, but we've just failed to look in the right 
direction?

c) Dark matter emits a kind of light beyond our understanding that we 
can't detect?

d) Something else.



(a) and (b) are highly improbable.

(c) is pseudo-scientific meaningless drivel.

(d) what else?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#728441 — Staring into the "hot fire" of the microwave background.

Sylvia to me:
> > 95% of our galaxy is "dark matter" ( unseen mass );
> > it's spherical, like earth, not a disk,
> > and it's denser in the middle, like earth.
> > 
> > What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ?
> > Just because we haven't seen it, doesn't mean it isn't viewable.
> 
> [ We're limited to 3 "improbable/meaningless" options ]

Good thing your "eyesight" and IMAGINATION are flawless, right ?

Staring into the "hot fire" of the microwave background
might've blinded us, so we can't see "Meta-ColdDarkMatter" 
( mCDM; cold, decayed particles; LOW ENERGY physics ).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#728450 — Re: Staring into the "hot fire" of the microwave background.

On 21/02/2019 7:48 pm, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> Sylvia to me:
>>> 95% of our galaxy is "dark matter" ( unseen mass );
>>> it's spherical, like earth, not a disk,
>>> and it's denser in the middle, like earth.
>>>
>>> What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ?
>>> Just because we haven't seen it, doesn't mean it isn't viewable.
>>
>> [ We're limited to 3 "improbable/meaningless" options ]
> 
> Good thing your "eyesight" and IMAGINATION are flawless, right ?
> 
> Staring into the "hot fire" of the microwave background
> might've blinded us, so we can't see "Meta-ColdDarkMatter"
> ( mCDM; cold, decayed particles; LOW ENERGY physics ).
> 

The microwave background radiation is electromagnetic. It wouldn't 
preclude detection of other kinds of radiation. It is also pretty cold. 
If dark matter were radiating EM, it would have to be cold indeed not to 
have been spotted. If it were capable of radiating EM, it would also be 
expected to absorb it, an effect which is also conspicuous by its absence.

You're left with interactions that are so small that they cannot be 
rules out by observations performed so far.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#728529 — Re: Staring into the "hot fire" of the microwave background.

Jeff-Relf.Me, @. wrote:
> 
> Sylvia to me:
> > > 95% of our galaxy is "dark matter" ( unseen mass );
> > > it's spherical, like earth, not a disk,
> > > and it's denser in the middle, like earth.
> > >
> > > What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ?
> > > Just because we haven't seen it, doesn't mean it isn't viewable.
> >
> > [ We're limited to 3 "improbable/meaningless" options ]
> 
> Good thing your "eyesight" and IMAGINATION are flawless, right ?
> 
> Staring into the "hot fire" of the microwave background
> might've blinded us, so we can't see "Meta-ColdDarkMatter"
> ( mCDM; cold, decayed particles; LOW ENERGY physics ).



Take a grape..
cut it in
four parts
and
put it inside a microwave oven...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#728671

Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
> On 17/02/2019 2:04 pm, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> > 95% of our galaxy is "dark matter" ( unseen mass );
> > it's spherical, like earth, not a disk,
> > and it's denser in the middle, like earth.
> >
> > What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ?
> > Just because we haven't seen it, doesn't mean it isn't viewable.
> >
> 
> What do you mean by this?
> 
> a) Dark matter emits light, but it all just happens to be blocked from
> our view by other matter?
> 
> b) Dark matter emits light, but we've just failed to look in the right
> direction?
> 
> c) Dark matter emits a kind of light beyond our understanding that we
> can't detect?
> 
> d) Something else.
> 
> (a) and (b) are highly improbable.
> 
> (c) is pseudo-scientific meaningless drivel.
> 
> (d) what else?



Dark matter is matter that is soooo far away..that you cannot see the
light that it emits.


 a few trillion miles away..

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#728673

On 22/02/2019 6:40 pm, The Starmaker wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>> On 17/02/2019 2:04 pm, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
>>> 95% of our galaxy is "dark matter" ( unseen mass );
>>> it's spherical, like earth, not a disk,
>>> and it's denser in the middle, like earth.
>>>
>>> What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ?
>>> Just because we haven't seen it, doesn't mean it isn't viewable.
>>>
>>
>> What do you mean by this?
>>
>> a) Dark matter emits light, but it all just happens to be blocked from
>> our view by other matter?
>>
>> b) Dark matter emits light, but we've just failed to look in the right
>> direction?
>>
>> c) Dark matter emits a kind of light beyond our understanding that we
>> can't detect?
>>
>> d) Something else.
>>
>> (a) and (b) are highly improbable.
>>
>> (c) is pseudo-scientific meaningless drivel.
>>
>> (d) what else?
> 
> 
> 
> Dark matter is matter that is soooo far away..that you cannot see the
> light that it emits.
> 
> 
>   a few trillion miles away..
> 
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
> 

We can see stuff that's near the edge of the universe, so far away that 
its light started out soon after the big bang. I don't think distance is 
a problem.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#728674

W dniu piątek, 22 lutego 2019 09:20:56 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> On 22/02/2019 6:40 pm, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>
> >> On 17/02/2019 2:04 pm, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> >>> 95% of our galaxy is "dark matter" ( unseen mass );
> >>> it's spherical, like earth, not a disk,
> >>> and it's denser in the middle, like earth.
> >>>
> >>> What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ?
> >>> Just because we haven't seen it, doesn't mean it isn't viewable.
> >>>
> >>
> >> What do you mean by this?
> >>
> >> a) Dark matter emits light, but it all just happens to be blocked from
> >> our view by other matter?
> >>
> >> b) Dark matter emits light, but we've just failed to look in the right
> >> direction?
> >>
> >> c) Dark matter emits a kind of light beyond our understanding that we
> >> can't detect?
> >>
> >> d) Something else.
> >>
> >> (a) and (b) are highly improbable.
> >>
> >> (c) is pseudo-scientific meaningless drivel.
> >>
> >> (d) what else?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Dark matter is matter that is soooo far away..that you cannot see the
> > light that it emits.
> > 
> > 
> >   a few trillion miles away..
> > 
> > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
> > 
> 
> We can see stuff that's near the edge of the universe, so far away that 
> its light started out soon after the big bang. I don't think distance is 
> a problem.
> 
> Sylvia.

If you want to correctly interpret observations and measurement  
results and understand the mechanism of the Universe - you have  
to reject commercial science products  and start using your own  
mind or people who have already done so.

To begin with, reject the cosmological principle that assumes  
the isotropic properties of the Universe on large scales, on  
which the standard model was built:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle

Many observations showed an anisotropic structure and  
distinguished directions in the universe which overthrew  
the cosmological principle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huge-LQG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules%E2%80%93Corona_Borealis_Great_Wall

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#728700

Sylvia Else wrote:

>> Dark matter is matter that is soooo far away..that you cannot see the
>> light that it emits.
>>   a few trillion miles away.. 
>> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net --- 
>
> We can see stuff that's near the edge of the universe, so far away that
> its light started out soon after the big bang. I don't think distance is
> a problem.

Saying being able to see through along the "dark matter" should be made 
illegal. You guys cant continue pushing this crap endlessly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#728757

On 23/02/2019 1:49 am, Wade Alvarado wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
>>> Dark matter is matter that is soooo far away..that you cannot see the
>>> light that it emits.
>>>    a few trillion miles away..
>>> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
>>
>> We can see stuff that's near the edge of the universe, so far away that
>> its light started out soon after the big bang. I don't think distance is
>> a problem.
> 
> Saying being able to see through along the "dark matter" should be made
> illegal. You guys cant continue pushing this crap endlessly.
> 

Neutrinos scarcely interact with matter.

Having a kind of matter that scarcely interacts (or perhaps doesn't 
interact at all) with photons doesn't seem so implausible.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#728781

On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 5:04:02 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 23/02/2019 1:49 am, Wade Alvarado wrote:
> > Sylvia Else wrote:
> > 
> >>> Dark matter is matter that is soooo far away..that you cannot see the
> >>> light that it emits.
> >>>    a few trillion miles away..
> >>> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
> >>
> >> We can see stuff that's near the edge of the universe, so far away that
> >> its light started out soon after the big bang. I don't think distance is
> >> a problem.
> > 
> > Saying being able to see through along the "dark matter" should be made
> > illegal. You guys cant continue pushing this crap endlessly.
> 
> Neutrinos scarcely interact with matter.
> 
> Having a kind of matter that scarcely interacts (or perhaps doesn't 
> interact at all) with photons doesn't seem so implausible.
> 
> Sylvia.

That kind of matter we already have. It's called Wives.

-- Mahipal == माहिपाल "My Pal" or "Maple" Loops, S(y)rup, Wood. IPMM ७६३८! 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#728806

W dniu piątek, 22 lutego 2019 23:04:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> On 23/02/2019 1:49 am, Wade Alvarado wrote:
> > Sylvia Else wrote:
> > 
> >>> Dark matter is matter that is soooo far away..that you cannot see the
> >>> light that it emits.
> >>>    a few trillion miles away..
> >>> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
> >>
> >> We can see stuff that's near the edge of the universe, so far away that
> >> its light started out soon after the big bang. I don't think distance is
> >> a problem.
> > 
> > Saying being able to see through along the "dark matter" should be made
> > illegal. You guys cant continue pushing this crap endlessly.
> > 
> 
> Neutrinos scarcely interact with matter.
> 
...
Of course not, because it is rather a science fiction. 
Detectors do not detect the interaction of neutrinos with  
protons, they are likely to detect natural decays. That was  
the first idea of their construction.

If the disintegration of protons is the result of neutrinos,  
then neutrinos should also influence the breakdown of other  
atomic nuclei. Is closer to the Sun (eg on Mercury) different  
half-lives of decays, do neutrons break up there faster?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#728715

Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
> On 22/02/2019 6:40 pm, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>
> >> On 17/02/2019 2:04 pm, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> >>> 95% of our galaxy is "dark matter" ( unseen mass );
> >>> it's spherical, like earth, not a disk,
> >>> and it's denser in the middle, like earth.
> >>>
> >>> What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ?
> >>> Just because we haven't seen it, doesn't mean it isn't viewable.
> >>>
> >>
> >> What do you mean by this?
> >>
> >> a) Dark matter emits light, but it all just happens to be blocked from
> >> our view by other matter?
> >>
> >> b) Dark matter emits light, but we've just failed to look in the right
> >> direction?
> >>
> >> c) Dark matter emits a kind of light beyond our understanding that we
> >> can't detect?
> >>
> >> d) Something else.
> >>
> >> (a) and (b) are highly improbable.
> >>
> >> (c) is pseudo-scientific meaningless drivel.
> >>
> >> (d) what else?
> >
> >
> >
> > Dark matter is matter that is soooo far away..that you cannot see the
> > light that it emits.
> >
> >
> >   a few trillion miles away..
> >
> > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
> >
> 
> We can see stuff that's near the edge of the universe, so far away that
> its light started out soon after the big bang. I don't think distance is
> a problem.
> 
> Sylvia.

Sorry, my mistake...I meant to write  a few trillion light years away.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#728824

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Sylvia Else wrote:
> >
> > On 22/02/2019 6:40 pm, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Sylvia Else wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 17/02/2019 2:04 pm, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> > >>> 95% of our galaxy is "dark matter" ( unseen mass );
> > >>> it's spherical, like earth, not a disk,
> > >>> and it's denser in the middle, like earth.
> > >>>
> > >>> What are the chances that we're just blind(ed) ?
> > >>> Just because we haven't seen it, doesn't mean it isn't viewable.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> What do you mean by this?
> > >>
> > >> a) Dark matter emits light, but it all just happens to be blocked from
> > >> our view by other matter?
> > >>
> > >> b) Dark matter emits light, but we've just failed to look in the right
> > >> direction?
> > >>
> > >> c) Dark matter emits a kind of light beyond our understanding that we
> > >> can't detect?
> > >>
> > >> d) Something else.
> > >>
> > >> (a) and (b) are highly improbable.
> > >>
> > >> (c) is pseudo-scientific meaningless drivel.
> > >>
> > >> (d) what else?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dark matter is matter that is soooo far away..that you cannot see the
> > > light that it emits.
> > >
> > >
> > >   a few trillion miles away..
> > >
> > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
> > >
> >
> > We can see stuff that's near the edge of the universe, so far away that
> > its light started out soon after the big bang. I don't think distance is
> > a problem.
> >
> > Sylvia.
> 
> Sorry, my mistake...I meant to write  a few trillion light years away.
> 


That means...Before the big bang...before Time...where Time doesn't
exist. Very far away.

Very, very far away...

where Light doesn't travel.


But I undrstand...yous have differculty or not allowed to...think
outside of your box.


Yous people, in your 'community' have certain...tabboos,

like, you're not allowed to say "No ateroids killed the dinosaurs."


You can say "volcanos killed the dinosaurs" as long as you say/include
"right after the ateroids killed them"


You can say "a Tismonia drowned all the dinosaurs" as long as you
say/include "right after the ateroids killed them".


But , you're not allowed to say "No ateroids killed the dinosaurs."  You
need permission first.

You're not allowed to say the universe is 20.7 billions old unless you
get prermission first from ...your leaders.


I understand. They, 'they' will threaten to kill all your funding you
try to get...


you will be...Expunged.


They will throw you in the 'crackpot' den...

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web