Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Express_Helicopter93 t1_ja8cnjz wrote

Can we do some basic research before we post inane thoughts to social media? Is that so hard to ask, humanity?

16

cheetonian t1_ja8dkbp wrote

People in general think they are waaaaaay way way way more knowledgeable about any given subject than they actually are. It’s partially human nature, and partially a terrible educational system

7

WistfulD t1_ja8itl1 wrote

Random or poorly thought out ideas are fine (this is a grand time-waster site, after all). What would be nice is if people framed it along the lines of being a novice seeking clarity, rather than their novice idea being "so obvious" or otherwise going to revolutionize a field countless people have spent a lifetime trying to resolve. Something closer to "I have this theory, does anyone know if it lines up with an existing theory, or if it is debunked/doesn't actually make sense (and if so, how)?" That would make it more clear that they are looking for the beginner's explanations for things.

5

Anonymous-USA t1_ja8fy6u wrote

The universe is really “filled to the brim” on the very large macro level; you look at a galaxy and it looks very populated, but the actual distance and influence between individual stars in minuscule. Between individual galaxies even less. Matter in space is very minimal. If you’re referring to the fabric of space-time itself, then that is everywhere. But hydrogen, the most abundant element, is sparse. Free energy is weak — imperceptible gravitational ripples and microwave radiation.

Yours seems to be hypothesis-by-analogy, ie. water is a medium, then why not space?. Analogies are good for conceptualizing things and simplifying concepts, but not for workable theories. As kindly as I can say, I think that is the case here.

5

ExtonGuy t1_ja8f41k wrote

Assume this "wave" hypothesis was correct, what would be be able to observe? Assuming this hypothesis was wrong, what would we observe? And what is the difference? If there's no difference that you can tell, then this isn't science.

4

Ape_Togetha_Strong t1_ja8o911 wrote

Stop trying to understand physics through words instead of math. The words are meaningless without knowing the math that they are meant to describe. The words themselves are not understanding.

4

Syd-1-772453 OP t1_ja8qqce wrote

How am I able to understand what you mean? Those are just words correct?

−2

Ape_Togetha_Strong t1_ja8r05k wrote

Because the words I typed are not labels for the underlying math. Words that ARE just labels for complex underlying math are significantly different from words that aren't.

Are you really going to be this facetious?

5

10_pounds_of_salt t1_ja8fxdp wrote

I'm not that knowledgeable on this topic but I see a few issues with this.

  1. What I'm taking from this is your trying to say that dark matter is the manifestation of space time overlapping on itself which is just nonsensical.

  2. What do you mean "overflowing". space dosent have a size. In order for this to work there would need to be a greater reference point which would encompass the entire universe (at least I think that's how it works) which dosent exist.

  3. What would that overflow appear to us as?

  4. Space time cant warp itself

  5. The wave idea just does not make sense.

  6. How could the expanding universe create mirages? And what "physical manifestations" would occur.

I'm pretty sure some one more knowledgeable can go into the details.

3

Syd-1-772453 OP t1_ja8igoe wrote

LIGO is currently detecting gravitational waves which warp spacetime. If these waves form crests and troughs then can't there be constructive interference and generate a very high peak? Certainly that would have an unusual effect. If dark energy is stretching everything apart, that's the expansion we observe, so surely there must be a size somewhere.

−1

10_pounds_of_salt t1_ja8ivoa wrote

Gravitational waves are caused by the bending of space time not the other way around

3

Cryptizard t1_ja8icd2 wrote

I agree with others that you should probably think out and research your ideas before randomly posting them, but this does sound like the Dirac sea which you might find interesting.

3

Syd-1-772453 OP t1_ja8k1md wrote

Nice reference, thank you. I've spent years absorbing as much information as I can. This is an initial thought. Far from a theory, a hypothesis.

−3

ThrowawayPhysicist1 t1_ja8nz62 wrote

If you’ve spent years absorbing this information and this is the limit of what you know, you haven’t been very efficient. This is neither a theory nor a hypothesis (at least, not in the modern scientific sense). It’s “not even wrong”.

I know it’s frustrating to not understand something you wish to understand, even after putting in some cursory effort (usually, watching some YouTube videos or pop science documentary) but you have to remember that people spend years of their life intensely studying this stuff and learn actual material in that time-not just vague analogies. But if you want to have interesting ideas, you have to actually understand the underlying material. For example, can you derive why a specific rotation curve implies a specific density distribution? That’s basic undergraduate physics (and obviously important for dark matter studies).

4

Syd-1-772453 OP t1_ja8q9xd wrote

I disagree with the hypothesis definition, when I look it up it says: "Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption."

"A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation."

You have an excellent point otherwise. Thank you.

0

ThrowawayPhysicist1 t1_ja8r20e wrote

The second is closer to the modern scientific definition. And the part that’s problematic is “tested by further observation”. You’ve given a pretty vague analogy that can’t be (reasonably) tested because it isn’t really a full fledged idea. I can ask something like “what if dark matter is made of the souls of the damned” but unless I present a clear idea of what that means (clear enough to obtain potential effects) it’s not really science in the modern sense.

2