Evidence Points to the Detection of Dark Matter

[scroller]

But the shortest distance from the equator to the axis is through the sphere. Those lines are just surface measurement, a necessity to us because we live on the surfice.

And it's also a necessity if space is curved. If space is curved, then triangles don't add up to 180 degrees. There's simply no way to deny that, it's a proven mathematical fact.

[evilernie]

The best example I can give you is a beach ball. Think about why you cannot fold it flat neatly along the seams. The depth dimension distort rules that is meant only for a 2D world.

If you really create a 2d triangle, into a spherical earth you have to cross the mantle.

[evilernie]

If space is curved, then triangles don't add up to 180 degrees.

Triangle is a 2D object. By adding another dimension, it is no longer a triangle, hence would not add up to 180 degrees.

[hippifried]

But the shortest distance from the equator to the axis is through the sphere. Those lines are just surface measurement, a necessity to us because we live on the surfice.

And it's also a necessity if space is curved. If space is curved, then triangles don't add up to 180 degrees. There's simply no way to deny that, it's a proven mathematical fact.

Well that's the point. I don't buy the curvature of space. Modern memetics have the scientific world talking about space as if it has substance in & of itself. Hence the "dark matter" theory. I've seen no evidence of that. Just a bunch of computer models trying to claim that space acts like water. Well, until it doesn't, & then you get a bunch of oh so smart professional students trying to invent new math to make it work. To me, a layman, it just looks like somebody trying to get around trying to explain the fact that they can't define gravity. But so what? We can't define electricity either, but you're reading this on a computer screen.

Mathematics is a measuring tool. If something doesn't add up, there's usually a simple explanation. I'm sure there's forces that we haven't discovered yet, or that we just can't calculate because we're missing something. But that's no reason to make shit up or pull theories out of your ass. The "dark matter' theory has been around for a while now (80 years or something?), & nobody's been able to lend it credence. This article strikes me as suspicious. I keep getting visualizations of an astronomical equivalent to Piltdown Man.

[evilernie]

I don't think they're inventing a different math. They're just doing representation or illustration. It's just a maybe - a what if scenario.

As for dark matter, what if it is true. Then one pound of water may not be one pound of water, i.e. one pound of water may not be y * (mass of H + 2x mass of O). There might be dark matter that we are not accounting for since only matter has mass.

Did their discovery prove it for me? No. But my mind is open to the possibility.

[hippifried]

Huh? A poud of water will still be a pint. There's always something else in it.

[Teydyn]

If I may interject, we are discussing two different objects: a 2D and a 3D.

But the shortest distance from the equator to the axis is through the sphere.

We are not talking about the "ball", we are talking about the surface of the sphere. Thats perfectly 2 dimensional.

To me, a layman

This sums it up quite good. You have no clue (neither do i).

Just a bunch of computer models trying to claim that space acts like water. Well, until it doesn't, & then you get a bunch of oh so smart professional students trying to invent new math to make it work.

Thats the way it works. Formulate a theory that explains what you can see. If it works it will be accepted as "true" till you find evidence it isnt. Thats the way it has always been.
Maybe you have heard of this maniac upstart trying to rewrite the laws of gravity? Crazy fellow, this einstein...

I'm sure there's forces that we haven't discovered yet, or that we just can't calculate because we're missing something. But that's no reason to make shit up or pull theories out of your ass.

So is it a thing we havent discovered yet or is it "made up" bullshit? You have no clue and the professionals neither. Till there is a thing that disproves the theory. As long as there is only evidence that fits into it, it can be considered true.

[hippifried]

The surface of the ball is part of the ball.

I never studied formal logic either, but I know faulty logic when I see it. You can't just keep piling theories on top of other theories without coming up with some kind of evidence to support the original premise. The premise I have trouble with is the one that says there's a texture to space. That's what gives birth to the "dark matter" theory, among others. I'm lobbyable. I can be convinced. I'm not a total cynic. Just show me something. Anything. So far, they're batting zero, & I have have serious doubts about this "discovery" in the mine shaft.

Math is consistent logic. In the end, the numbers still have to add up or there's a problem with the formula. Nobody wants to backtrack or start over, so ya just toss out another theory. If the premise is wrong to start with, none of it works. It's not really possible to prove a negative, but if you can't find evidence to support the premise, sooner or later you just have to abandon the search & admit that you're all wet.

Maybe you have heard of this maniac upstart trying to rewrite the laws of gravity? Crazy fellow, this einstein...

Yeah, well... He failed.

So is it a thing we havent discovered yet or is it "made up" bullshit?

How the hell should I know? Nobody else does, unless they're makintheshitup, & I wouldn't be in on the hoax. I just like Trish & enjoy yanking her chain. If I can formulate an unanswerable question in the meantime, all the better. That hasn't happened yet, but i'm having fun.

[evilernie]

Ever wonder why global maps are drawn this way? Because you cannot flatten a sphere and expect the same dimension coming out of it.

Just because you don't know, you shouldn't call something bullshit. It's just because you don't know. Denying all science, especially basic geometry, by misstating concepts just denies you the possibility of accepting it.

There is NO conspiracy here. Science is very strict. That's why a lot of "theories" that we accept as truth are still considered theories. This includes your 180 degree triangles.

The dark matter concept is difficult to "prove" because they are not easily observable. That's why electrons are discovered before protons then neutrons. Without these discoveries, there wouldn't be electricity or nuclear power.

The article claimed "detection" could just be an attempt to fame, but maybe not. I just want to keep an open mind.

[scroller]

Well that's the point. I don't buy the curvature of space.

Well, no, earlier you were a denier of the logical fact that if space is curved, then triangles don't have 180 degrees. Are you now agreeing with that implication, or are you just "yanking chains"?

Sorry Trish. More hubris. Mathematics is an intellectual construct, & curvature doesn't change how many degrees are in a triangle as long as we count 360 in a circle.