1

New Theories / Re: What exactly gravity is?

« on: 10/09/2016 20:35:53 »

What is gravity...  The question still stands as unanswered.

Yeah Newton was the first to give it a name and value.

Einstein took a completely different approach and described some things more accurately, but still neither had said what it is.

We see there's a correlation between mass size, locality and attraction.

But we have yet to identify the underlying "cause" of the force.  Tho the LHC has put forth what appears evidence of the bozon, Higgs proposed. 

Electricity & Magnetism seem to share identical attraction properties of Gravity, on a much more powerful scale.   We don't know why E. is stronger than M, nor why E & M are far greater than G.

These are questions we would like answered.  Hopefully someone will come along and point out why.  If god created the universe, it seems god's not telling how.  Or if it randomly happens to be so....  We're just gonna have to figure it out.  Who knows, maybe some kind aliens will come along and enlighten us.

2

The Environment / Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?

« on: 24/03/2016 14:57:29 »

If observing that A always precedes B .... what name would you give to pretending that it doesn't?

"Flat Earth climate change skeptic."

I declare Craig the winner.  He's most successfully ground to argument down to nothing.

3

New Theories / Re: Is Dark matter really the byproduct of matter and antimatter?

« on: 24/03/2016 14:30:27 »

Dark matter is basically mass that doesn't interact electromagnetically.  Light can't shine on it (doesn't reflect off it) and the magnetic field may have no effect.  We can't see it, so we're mostly in the dark about it.

Anti matter - matter reaction are theorized to completely annihilate.  It's believed to be one of the most efficient mass-entergy conversion.  Its used in this fashion in very limited set of circumstances, because anti-matter production and containment are both very difficult to manage, given it's inherit natural reaction with anything not anit-matter.

Basically antimatter is mass that has had it's spin reversed to that of matter.

Dark matter is thought to be a by-product produced of supernova and hypernova events.  The stars that produce the events are the the most densely packed regions of mass (outside of black holes) believed to exist.  The nova event is the most violently explosive events to have left evidence behind.  A lot of this is base on theory but there's lot of evidence that supports it, via cosmological observations.

Black holes are also essentially dark matter, but they have so much highly localized gravity, that the math about them bends and breaks coherence too.  We've seen evidence there's a limited amount of mass that can enter a black hole in a given period of time.  I surmise this produces the nova explosion when a black hole first forms.

Nova episodes are the most violently explosive, densely packed regions of mass, believed to exist outside of the remaining black hole, at the time of the nova event, which is when and where dark matter is primarily produced.

Atoms like their electromagnetic qualities and coherence.  We don't really know why, but it's pretty strong.  They've measured electromagnetism to be orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.  Electromagnetic force has two equal and opposite forces or states, which cancels its effects out to a degree.  Gravity on the other hand is more of a one way operator.  Given enough gravity, gravity beats electromagnetism, which produces star light, heavier atoms and black holes, when they battle (so to speak).

I think of a black hole of as a region where gravity wins out against all (or perhaps most) other arguments.

Now we've tried smashing atoms together.  They produce the most energy when we smash anti-matter and matter together, so atom smashers usually resort to this experiment.  The LHC is the most energetic smashing experiment on Earth (to date, Chinese propose building a bigger one).  They claim they've witnessed evidence of the LHC producing dark matter, or more precisely they saw evidence of the higgs boson.  I tend to believe they're one and the same, but its my opinion and I'm entitled.

I think they'd really like to be able to make dark matter consistently, so they might better understand the structure of the atom.

But to sum it all up, the answer to your question is if antimatter - matter annihilation produces dark matter, probably not.  If so, not very often at all.

Personally I think it requires a lot of mass and the chaos of a nova event.  Tho there is evidence the sun produces dark matter, so it might not take a nova event, just a lot of mass arguing over the electromagnetic, strong/weak nuclear, gravity and time/space arguments.  According to string theory, there's a lot more arguments going on...

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Could the Universe be a black hole?

« on: 11/03/2016 15:45:31 »

The Lambda CDM model (big bang theory) doesn't apply gravity to the universe until after the initial expansion of the universe.  They oddly they say after gravity came to be the universe started gaining momentum, due to some inexplicable force termed Dark Energy.

BB theory has a lot of flaws, IMO.  These are a few of 'em.

We don't know why mass gained properties of gravity.  But it seems that it happened at or about the time matter came into existence.  Beyond that point physics as we understand them, do not compute -- the laws may have changed, who can say? Currently there is no definitive answer, we're kinda left speculating.

Lambda-CDM is the most organized set of postulations attempting to explain sequences that may have happened and are the most "accepted" set of postulations.   But honestly, we don't know.  Could be an omni-present god.  Tho I expect if BB is right, god's bb kit made a mess of his lab.   []