Cite, please.
Also, I ask again who taught you science, and what degrees do you hold?
The asteroid belt isn’t a point where the fundamental laws of physics change, it’s the point where our perception changes. Physics don’t change, the image just inverts itself.
Math actually works exactly like this. 1+1 and 1-(-1) are the “same” value. The “same” rules apply to both, but one is an inversion of the other. If all you’re looking at is the answer however, then you won’t notice any difference between 2 and 2.
Also, what physical changes to a probe would you be expecting to see, and how would you be seeing them exactly?
Correct me then… what is the accepted usage of infinite and how am I misusing it?
I don’t say this to be funny, but math has long ceded that there are multiple different kinds of infinities. The Fool screams “infinity is infinity, you can never get to it, and that’s all there is to it”, but math disagrees. There are entire branches of math which deal with countable and uncountable infinities. Infinity isn’t some static, unreachable value… it’s value is based completely on its relative comparison with other values, many of which infinite in extent themselves. Infinity is as relative a value as can possibly exist. Please at least learn what infinity is before chiding someone else on misusing it.
The arrogance of ignorance never ceases to amaze.
I’m not sure what Yorkies have to do with particle physics, or why you’re arguing with yourself about coats and heavy sedatives.
Strawman arguments will get you nowhere.
Ain’t that the truth.
Again I ask: Where did you learn this “science”, and what are your qualifications?
http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/images/darkenergy_pie.jpg
Dark matter and Dark energy comprise almost the totality of Outer Space and science has no idea what they are.
Seriously, why are you in here disagreeing with anything if you didn’t already know this?
No. I asked for a cite for this statement of yours:
. Do you have a cite for this particular statement?
Also, where did you learn science, and what are your qualifications in this field?
dark matter is a proposed theory, a hypothetical that helps answers some questions and moves things along theoretically. it’s still evolving as we learn more, as more evidence becomes available. pretending it’s an easily apprehended tenant of reality that we just fail to understand (yet some how, *you *do), is a gross mischaracterization. and if you claim to have a broader understanding than the rest of science on this subject–well…you’re going to have to stop skirting the question and finally answer: what qualifies you as an expert? you insist upon yourself as the authority and act condescendingly about how you alone have the gospel and secrets, as if you have some truth to bestow on lowly us…truth that requires suspension of belief in verifiable science in favor of convoluted crackpottery.
so—? what makes you an authority?
That’s exactly what I provided. This information is freely accessible and should be common knowledge to anyone attempting to debate this issue. Scroll down to the picture and read the insert.
http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/lectures/darkmatter.htm
If you didn’t already know this, then you’re in no position to be disagreeing with anything I’ve said.
Who are you, that we should disregard known science and listen to you? What is your background in the sciences? Where did you learn this?
that cite has an awful lot of exclamation points for something we are to be considering scientific canon.
who even wrote that…?
This guy, I think. It’s still ridiculous to treat the percentage as a fact. The author of the page isn’t “science itself.” He’s one scientist saying we know almost nothing about 96% of what’s out there because we don’t know much about dark matter; the OP has simplified this to “we know nothing about 99% of space” and neglected to mention the fact that it’s one person’s opinion.
What is the “theory” of dark matter then (I don’t even know what that means, but I’m assuming you do)? What is the total knowledge that science has of this “theory”? Can you answer these questions without having to refer to someone else for the answer?
I can spare you the trouble. Science knows NOTHING about dark matter, except that it doesn’t interact with light at all, and that there’s TONS more of it in space than visible matter.
All I’ve done is present a simple solution to a long-standing series of queries which have been perpetually perplexing mankind. If you can attack the theory itself, then do so. Believe it or not, that’s actually why I’m here.
My own qualifications are categorically beyond the scope of this argument, and boasting about my background will do nothing but further your irrational scorn of me. All you need to know about me is I can teach you a lot if your’e willing to put your own ego in check temporarily and actually be open to the concept of learning. All that’s really required is an honest acknowledgement that neither you, nor the nebulous concept of accreditation to which you’re desperately appealing, nor the relevant fields of science themselves know much of anything about the overwhelming majority of what is out there. That doesn’t mean my solution is correct necessarily, but it DOES mean that neither you NOR science has an alternate solution…so maybe, just MAYBE, you COULD learn something if you were open to the concept.
And if I’m proven wrong in the end, then so be it. But at least make an honest intellectual attempt at doing so.
“It turns out that roughly 70% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 25%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn’t be called “normal” matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the Universe.”
Is NASA a better reference, or do you need to be referenced to any of the other twelve thousands pages explaining the same concept basic concept. Science admittedly knows NOTHING about the overwhelming vast majority of outer space. If you didn’t already know this, then why are you arguing in here at all? Did you think science had it all figured out already or something? Are you really so blind and arrogant that you are stubbornly supporting a cause which doesn’t even exist? SCIENCE knows that it doesn’t know anything - why are you pretending that they do?
what “known science” am I asking you to disregard? I can answer that question, but I doubt you’ve read, let alone understood, enough of the OP to answer that question? And it probably isn’t a matter of capability, but rather a matter of willingness.
A large portion of your OP is incomprehensible.
maybe start here?
…can i answer what knowledge science has without referring to someone else’s studies on the topic?
you just asked me to explain what science knows–but only if i am the only source? you just contradicted yourself.
but it *does *explain why you are so off base about things–if you refuse to look at established science and just come up with your own answers, it really does explain the disconnect in your theory from actual science.
ah. so then neither do you. so why bring it up?
you can’t both assert we know nothing of it but then try to assert you have figured out some grand theory because *you *understand it. (you should also take a moment to update the wikipedia page on dark matter to “WE KNOW NOTHING.” well, everyone else but you, obviously.
so far you’re the only one with the ego (and boy, what an ego). its odd you speak so much of arrogance, when so far you are the one acting so far above everyone.
when one says far-fetched and scientifically contradictory things and requests to be taken seriously, it’s not “outside the scope of the argument” to cite why people should take you seriously. if we take you on your theory alone, you are immediately dismissed as crazy or just lacking a basic understanding of things. if you want us to indulge you further, you need to give us a reason why. all you’ve done is insist on yourself as holding some truth or answers–if only we have faith in the nonsense you’re spewing. that is not how rational thinkers do things, not around here–especially in cases such as this, when what you are saying is fairly difficult to take seriously (i see the other science forum dismissed your wrongheaded ideas without hardly a second glance.)
I’ve read the whole OP, and totally understand that it is absolute nonsense from beginning to end, as has been pointed out to you over and over again in this thread. Why are you unwilling to state your background? I would like to know what institute of higher learning taught you?
Truly amazing. You guys seriously didn’t know that science is ADMITTEDLY wildly ignorant as to what comprises the overwhelming majority of space? Yet, you are all in here ardently defending science, as though they have the answers all laid out neatly for you? It’s not even as though I’m disputing claims which science has made…I’m merely expanding the sphere of knowledge. If you’d spent the time you’ve been arguing with me actually attempting to understand the concept, you’d have known that [virtually] nothing I’ve said is even in opposition to science. All I’ve done is add a touch of perception to the perspective of the picture - and doing so sharpens the clarity of the image considerably.
Group conditioning is a frightening thing to witness. No wonder this timeline is so behind.
I reiterate the heat, fiction, and relation contained in my previous post.
Wonderful, you’ve read it all. So what part of science am I asking you disregard?
Dark energy and dark matter: yes the science is all very theoretical and somewhat sketchy since we’re dealing with competing theories of the unknown, and so I guess it makes it very easy for people to hijack the concept to put forward all sorts of crap which cannot be readily dismissed, since the actual nature of dark matter and dark energy are not sufficiently defined and understood as yet.
As such, I’m not going to pretend to be an expert on either topic, and so I will refrain from commenting on either term.
You earlier stated that we live inside of the sun. Science is pretty concrete on the concept of the Sun. Explain how we live inside of the Sun please.