Re: I could really use your help.
Sam Wormley
> If you don't know what dark matter is already your in for a surprise,
> and if you think you know what it is get ready to change your mind.
>
> Dark matter is the quantum physics of cosmology and it only occurs
> within the relativity of space. Space is relative as well as time and
> this means that the greater the distance you are from what you are
> observing, the greater the margin of error that exists in the
> observation.
>
Yesterday you posted this under, "The truth about dark matter", with
mostly mumbo jumbo with words you don't understand. If you would like
to learn something about some of the things we do know about dark
matter, matter with gravitational influence but no detectable emission
or absorption of light, read the following reference links.
Scientists Map Dark Matter, Prove Einstein Right
http://www.space.com/news/cosmic_shear_000512.html
Particle Dark Matter: Evidence, Candidates and Constraints
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
Dark Matter -- One Mystery Solved (Update)
http://www.physorg.com/news7058.html
Until recently cosmologists could not explain why
elliptical galaxies did not appear to have dark matter
haloes surrounding them, which is known to exist in other
types of galaxies. Analyzing data from a simulation
performed on one of the most advanced supercomputers in
the world, an Israeli cosmologist showed that the existing
model of elliptical galaxies was wrong, proving that dark
matter was there all along.
puppe...@hotmail.com
[snip]
> I am still trying to find a way to prove this theory to the world,
So far, I've not seen you hold up a theory, only word salad.
[computer memory moving snipped]
> Because the computers ability to calculate is not a constant (like the
> speed of light), it was an impossible task to predict what time it
> actually was before checking the time. This means that when observing
> information from a great distance, like the time on another computer,
> it was impossible to know exactly what the information really was. So
> I could only observe a probability.
[word salad snipped]
Um. Does your computer have a hard drive? Does it do hard drive
buffering and maintenance? If so, your tests are not meaningful.
Being unable to predict how long your computer will spend doing
disk maintenance is not evidence of the fundamental nature of
the universe.
> If objects in space exist in a wave state
> of possibility then they are moving away from themselves in every
> direction at the same time, and so objects a great distance from each
> other will gradually move closer together, because when observing each
> other from a distance they are already closer to each other in the
> realm of possibility.
Congratulations! You made the non sequitur playoffs!
> But if it were all true how could I really prove this theory to the
> scientific community? Seriously, can't you give me some ideas how I
> could prove all of this.
You could start by making something besides a word salad.
Socks
Bill Hobba
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:bpeYf.875274$x96.394318@attbi_s72...
> Corey...@gmail.com wrote:
>> If you don't know what dark matter is already your in for a surprise,
>> and if you think you know what it is get ready to change your mind.
>>
>> Dark matter is the quantum physics of cosmology and it only occurs
>> within the relativity of space. Space is relative as well as time and
>> this means that the greater the distance you are from what you are
>> observing, the greater the margin of error that exists in the
>> observation.
>>
>
> Yesterday you posted this under, "The truth about dark matter", with
> mostly mumbo jumbo with words you don't understand.
Very true. But from other posts it is obvious he is probably a troll aping
the style of idiots like the dyslexic troll - he may even be him. Engage
him purely for amusement or to get a point across.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
<Corey...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144119484.7...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >Very true. But from other posts it is obvious he is probably a troll
> >aping
>>the style of idiots like the dyslexic troll - he may even be him. Engage
>>him purely for amusement or to get a point across.
>
> group with so much malicious spam you can't even read it?
Other trolls are already doing it. Stand in line.
Bill
>It isn't
> hard to do, but for your information I'm not a troll and by insulting
> me you are actually the one in the wrong.
>
QCD Apprentice
>>Very true. But from other posts it is obvious he is probably a troll aping
>>the style of idiots like the dyslexic troll - he may even be him. Engage
>>him purely for amusement or to get a point across.
>
>
> hard to do, but for your information I'm not a troll and by insulting
> me you are actually the one in the wrong.
I'm pretty sure your threat doesn't make much sense given the existence
of kill files.
Bill Hobba
"QCD Apprentice" <qcd.app...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e0sntq$2re$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
Oh no, Oh no - it does. You see he can post under umpteen different names
exactly as the dyslexic troll does. In fact it is a well known troll
tactic. However it is being practiced by a number of trolls already so one
more will not make any difference - assuming he is in fact a different troll
from those that post already - which is itself doubtful. Trolls live to be
amused by the replies of others and by observing the 'chaos' their posts
cause. So turn the tables on them - reply with what amuses you then when
they think they have a taker disengage. I have found it is even more
effective than ignoring them. Some trolls are so persistent if you ignore
them it simply makes them more active so you may as well have a bit of fun.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
Just for the fun of it is always interesting to have a look at the posts of
these guys on other forums. A couple of minutes work dug up the following:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.magick/msg/c7b39607eb0c30b5
Enough said.
Thanks
Bill
RadicalLi...@hotmail.com
small that they are maybe %95 nonexistent or something like that.
But anyway - lets forget about the particle thing and the nonexistence
for a second. Look - you have gravity and there is no detectable reason
why it would be there. You could consider this to be information which
has no source. An effect for which there is no detectable cause.
If that were true, then the universe is not deterministic.
Bill Hobba
<RadicalLi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144123878.1...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> Dark matter is probably just particle-like structures which are so
> small that they are maybe %95 nonexistent or something like that.
Most likely something along the lines you decided to prove my point and post
your incoherent drivel under another name. Grow up moron. Pity we can not
take legal action like the Randini foundation - we would all have a nicer
iriterntet. Ah well we can now have the fun of ignoring you and watch you
post away and not get any bites. And we can build up a list of names that
you post under - so far we have Corey White, RadicalLibertiran and Virtual
Adepts. It will be amusing to watch the list grow.
Bill
ABarlow
Corey...@gmail.com wrote:
> If you don't know what dark matter is already your in for a surprise,
> and if you think you know what it is get ready to change your mind.
>
> Dark matter is the quantum physics of cosmology and it only occurs
> within the relativity of space.
This statement makes no sense.
> Space is relative as well as time and
> this means that the greater the distance you are from what you are
> observing, the greater the margin of error that exists in the
> observation.
No, that is not what the meaning of space and time being relative is at
all.
> I am still trying to find a way to prove this theory to the world, but
> it is a challenge to change scientific thought and I need more evidence
> than I currently have. If I am right in this hypothesis what it means
> to astrophysics is that dark matter is actually regular matter that
> exists in a superposition of different possibilities at the same time.
> All matter behaves this way when it is observed from a great distance,
> and its fluctuating wave state impacts matter that is nearer to us.
> This causes the matter that we do observe to behave in unpredictable
> ways as if it is being influenced by something we can't measure with
> our instruments.
You haven't made a hypothesis yet. You are just making random
conjectures. A hypothesis must be testable and it must be falsifable
(sp?). Your musing are neither.
> To try and prove my hypothesis I set up an experiment with my computer.
> I wrote a program to check the system time and to transfer the
> information to another part of memory on the computer. I simulated a
> great distance by transferring the data around the computers memory to
> different variables 100 million times. Then I tride to calculate what
> time it was on the computer.
>
> Because the computers ability to calculate is not a constant (like the
> speed of light), it was an impossible task to predict what time it
> actually was before checking the time. This means that when observing
> information from a great distance, like the time on another computer,
> it was impossible to know exactly what the information really was. So
> I could only observe a probability.
What probability were you measuring? This doesn't make sense. It is
possible to know the time exactly, all you need is the initial time,
and the rate at which the computer carries out operations.
> What is interesting about this is that no matter who was observing the
> experiment, there could never be an objective observer to determine the
> actual time. Even the observer who was actually keeping track of the
> time couldn't know what time it was when the information actually
> arrived at its location.
It is possible to know the time exactly, all you need is the initial
time, and the rate at which the computer carries out operations, and
the number of operations. For instance, if you're running on a 1 GHz
computer, you compute 1 billion operations per second. Thus, if you
transfer the variable one hundred million times, the system clock will
have advanced 0.1s
> What this means is that with greater
> distance, things actually become possibilities, and that relative to
> space things don't exist as particles but exist as waves.
This doesn't follow from your experiment at all.
> This even happens on the macro level, so 100 million light years away
> from us, the dark matter is actually regular ordinary matter that is
> existing as a wave of possibilities.
100 million light years isn't that far. We can see ordinary matter that
far away.
> Another result of this theory is
> that it can explain gravity. If objects in space exist in a wave state
> of possibility then they are moving away from themselves in every
> direction at the same time, and so objects a great distance from each
> other will gradually move closer together, because when observing each
> other from a distance they are already closer to each other in the
> realm of possibility.
This doesn't make sense at all.
> Some of quantum physics also makes since with
> this theory. If things even a small distance from you are existing in
> a superposition of probabilities, then at the smallest level you could
> notice this occurance. So quantum physics is really do to the
> relativity of space!
No, quantum physics is inconsistent with your theory. It says at large
distances, quantum effects should converge on classical effects.
> But if it were all true how could I really prove this theory to the
> scientific community? Seriously, can't you give me some ideas how I
> could prove all of this.
First, you need to develop a hypothesis. Preferably something
mathematical, and simple. Don't try to prove your whole theory in one
go, just some small aspect of it. Present an experiment that is
relavent (in your case, that will almost certainly mean telescope
time--or *maybe* a very clever numerical simulation (not a computer
experiment, like you tried to show; a computer program that models data
from a real experiment--you might want to do some research on Monte
Carlo analysis). Deriving a relationship or proportionality would be
good too.
A.
ABarlow
a Ph.D in physics from a respectible university, and get yourself
subscriptions to the peer-reviewed journals in physic and astrophysics
so you can be up on all the latest experiments. I guess that's two
things. Oh well.
A.
RadicalLi...@hotmail.com
babbles nonsense.
=>whereas<=
......you have already conceded to me that you agree that I speak the
truth.
I think that you need to get calibrated or something.
RadicalLi...@hotmail.com
Bill Hobba wrote:
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:bpeYf.875274$x96.394318@attbi_s72...
> > Corey...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> If you don't know what dark matter is already your in for a surprise,
> >> and if you think you know what it is get ready to change your mind.
> >>
> >> Dark matter is the quantum physics of cosmology and it only occurs
> >> within the relativity of space. Space is relative as well as time and
> >> this means that the greater the distance you are from what you are
> >> observing, the greater the margin of error that exists in the
> >> observation.
> >>
> >
> > Yesterday you posted this under, "The truth about dark matter", with
> > mostly mumbo jumbo with words you don't understand.
>
> Very true. But from other posts it is obvious he is probably a troll aping
> the style of idiots like the dyslexic troll - he may even be him. Engage
> him purely for amusement or to get a point across.
{the sounds of wild geese)
QUAAAAAaaaaackkkkkk......QUAAAAAaaaaackkkkkk......QUAAAAAaaaaackkkkkk
> Thanks
> Bill
He who sits in judgement of trolls. I've never seen you post anything
even remotely related to physics Hobba, just silly attacks on people.
I'm starting to think that you are probably just hooked on BDSM porn,
and you come in here to insult people as a masturbatory aid.