The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What is the mass of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR)?  (Read 8067 times)

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
There. Gone. Vanished. History. Sianara.
Jolly good!

Isn't it so much nicer when we can have an intelligent debate without having to insult each other?

Clearly, there is a rather large disparity between our obseravtions of spatial bodies and our understanding of how those bodies should behave. Is this not so?

Locally, we do quite fine. We can approximate a great deal from Newtonian Mechanics. On a larger scale, we apply relativity; but on even larger scales, relativity doesn't seem to work, either by some fundamental error within the theory itself, or there really is missing matter we cannot seem to observe.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory

It's "Sayonara", not Sianara.

:) Yes. Quite right.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Locally, we do quite fine. We can approximate a great deal from Newtonian Mechanics. On a larger scale, we apply relativity; but on even larger scales, relativity doesn't seem to work, either by some fundamental error within the theory itself, or there really is missing matter we cannot seem to observe.

Fantastic! And why did your statement differ from my statement, other than the fact that it was your statement?
« Last Edit: 27/09/2009 16:22:48 by Geezer »
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Locally, we do quite fine. We can approximate a great deal from Newtonian Mechanics. On a larger scale, we apply relativity; but on even larger scales, relativity doesn't seem to work, either by some fundamental error within the theory itself, or there really is missing matter we cannot seem to observe.

Fantastic! And why did your statement differ from my statement, other than than the fact that it was your statement?

It depended on what disparity you where asserting.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
This is what I originally said:
The amount of dark matter required to "fix things up" is truly enormous. That suggests to me that our understanding of gravity and the nature of space needs a bit of a tuneup. (I expect I'll get some heat for even suggesting that!)

Our understanding of gravity is based on our observations on Earth and within our "near space". However, most of space is nothing like our near space. Our near space is, relatively speaking, chockablock with matter. Most of space contains next to no matter.

I think it is well accepted that gravity is caused by an interaction between matter and space, so, is it unreasonable to suggest that space behaves differently depending on the amount of matter it contains? If that is the case, we should not assume the laws of gravity that we observe in our near space are constant throughout the universe.

We already accept that distance between matter does create some profound, nonlinear, effects. We are still searching for a unified theory. Why would we assume that the gravitational effects that we can observe are linear throughout all of space?

This was Ms Scientist's later post.
Locally, we do quite fine. We can approximate a great deal from Newtonian Mechanics. On a larger scale, we apply relativity; but on even larger scales, relativity doesn't seem to work, either by some fundamental error within the theory itself, or there really is missing matter we cannot seem to observe.

What's the difference?
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
This is what I originally said:
The amount of dark matter required to "fix things up" is truly enormous. That suggests to me that our understanding of gravity and the nature of space needs a bit of a tuneup. (I expect I'll get some heat for even suggesting that!)

Our understanding of gravity is based on our observations on Earth and within our "near space". However, most of space is nothing like our near space. Our near space is, relatively speaking, chockablock with matter. Most of space contains next to no matter.

I think it is well accepted that gravity is caused by an interaction between matter and space, so, is it unreasonable to suggest that space behaves differently depending on the amount of matter it contains? If that is the case, we should not assume the laws of gravity that we observe in our near space are constant throughout the universe.

We already accept that distance between matter does create some profound, nonlinear, effects. We are still searching for a unified theory. Why would we assume that the gravitational effects that we can observe are linear throughout all of space?

This was Ms Scientist's later post.
Locally, we do quite fine. We can approximate a great deal from Newtonian Mechanics. On a larger scale, we apply relativity; but on even larger scales, relativity doesn't seem to work, either by some fundamental error within the theory itself, or there really is missing matter we cannot seem to observe.

What's the difference?

When you put everything youn have said into a big block like this - it certainly makes more sense. Yes, there is little difference.
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
My main problem with Dark Mater and it's effects, as well as a "flat universe" (which, by the way, remains undefined except for those of the Illuminati) is that it dose not fit into any provable mechanics of the universe.

Einstein's Theory of General relativity in planetary motion has been proven to be correct, even in local time-space. (see the vast number if references for Lunar Laser Reflector Mission on Google - http://www.google.com/search?q=lunar+laser+ranging+mission&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) The fact that a metric universe in inimical to the measurements made which show the orbit of the moon to not be predictable by Newtonian motion (the moon's orbit is 10 meters off the predicted orbit using a metric universe) and only predictable by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity means that space-time warping is the best explanation for gravity TO DATE and that there is NO acceptable alternative theory or even a hypothesis that has any quantitative grounding.

This means it is just smoke and mirrors done with some spurious mathematics that even some mathematicians find difficulty believing. (http://www.newuniverse.co.uk/Shape_of_the_Universe.html)

There are other implications to the many possible shapes of the universe which can serve as another subject for discussion.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums