Philosophy Now Forum

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:24 pm there's now direct evidence for dark matter.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:24 pm According to a new article, it says that the first stars have just been found plus there's now direct evidence for dark matter.

Without further confirmation (peer review, more stories), I remain skeptical. The article didn't specify what the dark matter is made out of. Anyone else following this?

PhilX

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:37 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:24 pm According to a new article, it says that the first stars have just been found plus there's now direct evidence for dark matter.

Without further confirmation (peer review, more stories), I remain skeptical. The article didn't specify what the dark matter is made out of. Anyone else following this?

PhilX

Links?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:37 pm
Links?

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:27 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:24 pm there's now direct evidence for dark matter.

If I'd known they were looking for it I would have given them access to my socks, I've had the evidence for years.

wtf wrote: ↑Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:49 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:37 pm
Links?

Greta wrote: ↑Sat Mar 03, 2018 7:10 am

wtf wrote: ↑Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:49 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:37 pm
Links?

To paraphrase Crocodile Dundee, that's not a link ... this is a link: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 101807.htm

What I gather from various commentators about the nature of dark matter, it was primordial matter that formed huge stars and subsequent black holes in the early, compressed universe, perhaps even before atoms could form. As the universe expanded and cooled the dark matter was too thin to form stars and just ended up becoming like a halo around regular matter, a little like a bacterial cloud around an animal.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:27 pm

Greta wrote: ↑Sat Mar 03, 2018 7:10 am

wtf wrote: ↑Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:49 pm

To paraphrase Crocodile Dundee, that's not a link ... this is a link: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 101807.htm

What I gather from various commentators about the nature of dark matter, it was primordial matter that formed huge stars and subsequent black holes in the early, compressed universe, perhaps even before atoms could form. As the universe expanded and cooled the dark matter was too thin to form stars and just ended up becoming like a halo around regular matter, a little like a bacterial cloud around an animal.

Maybe I misread or ignored part of the article but I did not see a coherent definition for what dark matter even is...it appears to me (and I say this strictly subjectively) that the "measurement" system they are using is strictly one of negation where the space between entities is measured not the entities themselves.

Greta wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:42 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:27 pm

Greta wrote: ↑Sat Mar 03, 2018 7:10 am

To paraphrase Crocodile Dundee, that's not a link ... this is a link: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 101807.htm

What I gather from various commentators about the nature of dark matter, it was primordial matter that formed huge stars and subsequent black holes in the early, compressed universe, perhaps even before atoms could form. As the universe expanded and cooled the dark matter was too thin to form stars and just ended up becoming like a halo around regular matter, a little like a bacterial cloud around an animal.

Maybe I misread or ignored part of the article but I did not see a coherent definition for what dark matter even is...it appears to me (and I say this strictly subjectively) that the "measurement" system they are using is strictly one of negation where the space between entities is measured not the entities themselves.

Well, finding out about dark matter is difficult because it is dark

For how simple and comical that point is...it's true. If dark matter is observed is it still dark matter? I don't think dark matter can ever be observed or measured except as a deficiency of light, hence light still maintains itself as the most axiomatic form of measurement relative to physics...however as a student of philosophy I have questions even for that measurement scale.

Relativity is a negative form of physics, which has it's place. In reality its dependence upon relations, as the negation of constants into further movements causes it to be house formed on sand.

There are constant facts, then there are relative facts, then there are axioms as the synthesis between the two which form the perspective measurements which in turn form us.

A relativistic philosophy, which physics currently premises itself on, is only 1/3 of the truth...in my opinion.

I've personally wondered if dark matter is actually part of normal matter, like the part of the iceberg under the surface.