🧵 What is dark matter really?
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 05:45:46 UTC No. 16443668
Are the "fields" which material matter usually experiences really just dark matter which interacts with physical matter under a specific set of conditions? For instance magnetic field is measurable only when a particular charge is under some velocity, likewise an electromagnetic wave is only emitted when the said charge is undergoing some acceleration. An electric field is only observable when a dipole is present, and a gravitational field is only calculable when there's some mass to experience it and thereby prove its existence. In all instances, physical matter had to be in a specific set of conditions for the "field" to prove its existence, or more aptly, interact with the matter. Are those "fields" just different types of dark matter? Is there physical matter which is incapable of "stimulating" the dark matter in order to "prove" its existence? Is it plausible to start experimenting with random physical quantities just to see if we discover some new type of field, ultimately reaching closer to our understanding of what dark matter even is?
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 05:51:50 UTC No. 16443671
>>16443668
Dark matter is a pyop which physicists use to cope with their inability to grasp phenomena beyond the 5 senses
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 05:55:49 UTC No. 16443675
Dark matter is simply blanket term for a set of currently unexplained observations. No one knows what causes them. The particle explanation is the most plausible because it is a single idea that can explain everything. The problem is that the particle has never been found, and what most scientists won't tell you is that is might never be found. That is because it might not interact with normal matter at all, so every experiment to detect it will always fail. They don't like admitting that because it doesn't get them funding.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 06:00:29 UTC No. 16443681
>>16443675
Then how would one wrap their around what a field is? A field feels like matter which is invisible, and apparently interacts with physical matter under a set of conditions. To prove a field's existence, physical matter must interact with it.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 06:13:05 UTC No. 16443694
>>16443681
QFT says that fields are fundamental, particles are quantized vibrations in that field (each particle has an associated field).
> To prove a field's existence, physical matter must interact with it.
Yes, an interaction has to take place. But that interaction could only be via gravity, which could be the case with dark matter and so is neigh impossible to measure except at galactic scales.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 07:07:09 UTC No. 16443741
matter isn't real
it's just a word you use to talk about your perceptions
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 07:33:38 UTC No. 16443754
>>16443741
I agree. The scientific method is purely based on immediate observations. The rest can't be comprehended because our senses have evolved here on earth. There's no plausible reason for us to try and comprehend what is beyond our sensory perception. To assume the laws of the universe to be available to our immediate senses is deeply irrational for us otherwise rational beings.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 08:08:49 UTC No. 16443773
Dark matter is just regular matter but in parallel timelines. We can't see matter in the parallel timelines, but we can "see" gravity from the matter in the other timelines.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 08:12:10 UTC No. 16443777
A combination of black holes and brown dwarfs. We can't see them in any frequencies because they're so inactive, but they're fucking everywhere.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 10:42:30 UTC No. 16443915
>>16443668
>Is it plausible to start experimenting with random physical quantities just to see if we discover some new type of field, ultimately reaching closer to our understanding of what dark matter even is?
Yes it's plausible. It's called a particle accelerator.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 10:45:38 UTC No. 16443916
>>16443773
Literal reddit tier theory. There's no proof of timelines. Time is a fixed linear entity. It cannot be evaluated through different reference frames.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 18:54:24 UTC No. 16444508
>>16443916
>There's no proof of timelines.
Dark matter is itself evidence of parallel timelines.
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 00:40:43 UTC No. 16445051
>>16443668
a miserable little pile of secrets
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 02:38:51 UTC No. 16445196
>>16443671
/thread
empiricist will always be a joke a long with materialist.
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 02:58:11 UTC No. 16445218
>>16443915
This. Also OP is a tard.
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 14:28:14 UTC No. 16447182
>>16443668
Nonexistent