You should clarify your understanding.Neither yours, momeranthe's or my own comments were belligerent. No worries there.Is trying to discredit an argumentum ab auctoritate source an ad hom? Maybe. Strike that then. You are just left with your original argumentum ab auctoritate.
Quote from: IslandPlaya on 07/29/2014 06:47 pmYou should clarify your understanding.Neither yours, momeranthe's or my own comments were belligerent. No worries there.Is trying to discredit an argumentum ab auctoritate source an ad hom? Maybe. Strike that then. You are just left with your original argumentum ab auctoritate.When one (me) is not an authority then the only recourse one has in arguing is to cite authoritative sources. as it happens i cited kaku but kaku is not the primary source for the information concerned. i am certain he said that because he read it or heard it from primary sources qualified to say that; not that he himself isn't qualified.anyway to prevent this from going adrift back to an earlier point:can you imagine what it would mean if the anomalous spectrum reading from Perseus and Andromeda turns out to be from matter with nonstandard nucleons or an electron substitute of some type?the strength of electronic bonds and nuclear bonds in matter are derived in part from the density and mass of the nucleons and the bond lengths of the electrons. if you had carbon and iron that had smaller nucleons and tighter bonding orbitals then steel made from these exotic atoms would have magnified properties. it would be harder to break the bonds. photons and particles would have a tougher time going through the atoms and empty spaces between atoms. it would have a higher melting point. it would be harder to break, bend, puncture, or cut.you could have hull materials that could take a beating, shield from radiation better and could reenter the atmosphere unphased or go beyond current limits of crush depth in the ocean or in dense atmospheres like venus.if there was not a fault in the machine or an error in the signal processing then whatever that was it was not a known element and there is almost no room in the periodic table for unknown normal matter elements. on the face of it it is something other than known forms of matter.
In a duel of credentials who would win; you or Dr Kaku?
whatever one's opinion of Dr Kaku is; you can bet he did not make that up. you can bet he had primary sources.
Whoa big guy!The anomalous spectrum reading from Perseus and Andromeda is easily explained by excitations.
I suspect that looking for more updated articles by Dr. Kaku will yeild a different "rationalization" if he even still believes the assumptions made in the ariticle itself.Randy
Quote from: IslandPlaya on 07/29/2014 07:08 pmWhoa big guy!The anomalous spectrum reading from Perseus and Andromeda is easily explained by excitations.i could very well be wrong. but it was my understanding that the line appears in a place other than lines occupied by normal matter no matter the degree of ionization which is what i think of when you say excitation. so in the event my understanding is faulty can you elaborate? i would think that a more likely nullifying explanation would be a loose wire or broken bracket or faulty signal processing algorithms. the argument against is i think that the Perseus and Andromeda observations were made by different teams with different instruments at physically separate observatories.i really do crave any news that supports exotic forms of matter but i know there are probably other explanations and am willing to listen to reason.
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/events/2014/sackler/index/talks/Harvard2014_Weiner.pdfJust go to the end of the doc. The rest of the doc is fine, handwaving stuff...
Quote from: IslandPlaya on 07/29/2014 07:33 pmhttp://www.cfa.harvard.edu/events/2014/sackler/index/talks/Harvard2014_Weiner.pdfJust go to the end of the doc. The rest of the doc is fine, handwaving stuff...that's interesting. they allow that it could be dark matter but think the more probable explanation is excitations. it's not conclusive but occams razor would imply that explanation is likely.well it seems if i want weird matter i have to stick with mirror matter or this until something else pops upwhich is fun romp through monopole lore even though it is a science fiction site:http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/48630634d2591it is fiction but based in peer reviewed papers on the topic of monopoles and atoms made of monopoles.
I have dreams that the Woodward/Mach effect is true and usable. Also I dream that we will have a compact fusion source of power. Together that would be awesome!I'm an optimist. But lets not get into kookdom and suchlike... Y'know?
I never called Dr Woodward or anyone for that matter kooks!
say! i have a new question but it's sort of related to stuff i mentioned in this thread about Woodward's take on negative mass... i mean maybe it's related. that's the question.Woodward mentioned in his video that in QED theory the naked mass of all matter is actually negative (at least in the math) before being renormalized. He further said that it might be possible to separate the renormalization terms and hence possibly the physics such that the negative mass is revealed. which in turn would possibly lead you to easily accessible negative mass or energy needed to do science fictiony stuff.so anyway I saw this:http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Scientists_separate_a_particle_from_its_properties_999.htmland my question is even though the properties separated here are not the renormalization factors he theorized about; does this illuminate in any way the potential to do what he said about separating the QED renormalization or adding a delay line to it or something like that?
random silly insomnia driven way to early in the morning question:Dr White said in his 2013 conference presentation that he thinks he can increase the permitivity of space by collapsing and expanding the negative energy zone around the ring on his theoretical space ship. the permitivity of space... It's kind of like a fundamental constant isn't it? what other things like this are theoretically possible? can you alter van der wahl's force such that matter becomes intangible or invisible or something freaky like that? what else is theoretically possible in that vein but not widely known or talked about? i never had the slightest clue that altering something like permitivity of space is even possible not even as a theoretical exercise. and believe me if it has to do with FTL, warps, wormholes or stuff like that i am usually all over it.EDIT: i just thought of something. if the permitivity of space can be altered and space and time are inextricably related does that mean you can mess with the "permitivity of time" as well?
That seems kind of harsh. Dr white did go through the academic acreditisation process and get both a doctorate and a masters degree and is a physicist and an engineer. He did get hired and retained by NASA. i don't think he did any of that by having delusions or being unreliable or ill suited to his fields and so forth.
There's no reason to believe that this is possible. It's only "theoretically possible" in the sense that anything at all is theoretically possible if we discover that there are new laws of physics we don't know about. Everything Sonny White talks about requires new laws of physics, and he has never shown any good evidence any of those new laws of physics exist.So, changing permitivity is no more or less crazy than anything else White proposes. If you buy into the other wackiness he's selling, you might as well buy into this too.
However, if there was some quirk of black holes that causes the emission of regular particles to be preferred over antimatter particles, that would explain black hole evaporation (it's just matter/antimatter annihilation in the core) and it would go towards explaining the abundance of matter over antimatter in the observable universe.That'd be neat. Clearly the way to test it is with domesticated black holes.