Attiyah's Dark Matter

Attiyah Zahdeh · 1st March 2011, 12:26 PM

Attiyah’s Dark Matter

1- Due to the universal gravitation, either any pair or any group of objects should have their own gravitational center.
2- All the space and the objects of the universe are completely full of the gravitational centers.
3- At any time, every point in the whole universe is a position of at least one gravitational center.
3- Due to the continuing motions of the objects of the universe, and due to continuing change of their relative positions, the gravitational centers either in the space or inside the objects themselves behave such as the molecules in the boiling water.
...

Please do not just cut and paste stuff here that is available elsewhere. Instead, post a short snippet and a link to the other source.

Posted By:LashL

Mashuna · 1st March 2011, 12:29 PM

I'll just file this alongside your theories of the sun and the Big Bang, ok?

Squeegee Beckenheim · 1st March 2011, 12:34 PM

Well, point 1 is correct, anyway.

Reality Check · 1st March 2011, 12:37 PM

The OP shows a large amount of ignorance of what dark matter is.
All it does is describe gravity and center of mass - and gets that wrong! "Gravitational centers" (i.e. centers of mass) are mathematical points that have no mass of their own.
The gravitational forces from the real objects in the system can be considered as acting from the center of mass.

drkitten · 1st March 2011, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh

1- Due to the universal gravitation, either any pair or any group of objects should have their own gravitational center.

Yes.

Quote:

2- All the space and the objects of the universe are completely full of the gravitational centers.

No.

Quote:

3- At any time, every point in the whole universe is a position of at least one gravitational center.

No.

Quote:

3- Due to the continuing motions of the objects of the universe, and due to continuing change of their relative positions, the gravitational centers either in the space or inside the objects themselves behave such as the molecules in the boiling water.

Quote:

4- In their turn, the gravitational centers themselves have their own universal gravitational effect which is similar to that due to the real objects.

Quote:

5- The universal gravitational effect of the gravitational centers is the so-called dark matter.

No in angry fruit salad colors.

Quote:

6- At any time, the dark matter in any volume of the universe is proportional to the gravitational forces acting at the gravitational centers filling it at that time.

Quote:

7- Either every object or every place in the universe has its own ever changing share of the dark matter.

drkitten · 1st March 2011, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Sceptic Tank

Well, point 1 is correct, anyway.

Did anyone else notice that point 3 is wrong twice?

Reality Check · 1st March 2011, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Did anyone else notice that point 3 is wrong twice?

I would say point 2 and the first point 3 are right.
Every point in the universe will be the center of mass of 2 other points.

The second point 3 is just wrong - the movements of centers of mass with the movements of matter in the universe has nothing to do with water molecules.

4 is gibberish unless he is talking about the simple use of centers of mass reference frames.
5 shows ignorance. Dark matter is matter that is dark - not centers of mass.
6 and 7 are just goofy.

dafydd · 1st March 2011, 12:51 PM

I believe that we have a new Einstein here folks.

drkitten · 1st March 2011, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

I would say point 2 and the first point 3 are right.
Every point in the universe will be the center of mass of 2 other points.

You'd be wrong, then. It depends on the distribution of mass, now, doesn't it? Since we can see that mass is not uniformly distributed,....

ETA: actually, 2 and 3.1 are wrong in a possibly interesting way. If points 1, 2, and 3.1 were correct, it would follow that the universe is both convex and closed.

Foster Zygote · 1st March 2011, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

I believe that we have a new Einstein here folks.

Jerry Einstein? He wears a Spider Man costume and yells at traffic on Michigan Avenue.

LarianLeQuella · 1st March 2011, 12:59 PM

Is there some sort of contest going on somewhere that is trying to be as wrong as possible? I think we have found the #1 contender for that title!

Reality Check · 1st March 2011, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by drkitten

You'd be wrong, then. It depends on the distribution of mass, now, doesn't it? Since we can see that mass is not uniformly distributed,....

ETA: actually, 2 and 3.1 are wrong in a possibly interesting way. If points 1, 2, and 3.1 were correct, it would follow that the universe is both convex and closed.

That is right - we would have to use a homogeneous universe (unless we allow the trival case of the center of mass of two points without mass

).
Even with a non-uniform distribution of mass, I would guess that it would take a rather special arrangement where a point would not be the center of mass of some collection of masses.

ben m · 1st March 2011, 01:46 PM

Attiyah, your dark matter theory is wrong. Your sunlight theory is also wrong. Your planet theory is also wrong. Your Big-Bang-ideas-came-from-Torah theory is also wrong.

This tells us something important. What thought processes are you using to construct these theories? That thought process doesn't work very well. Please stop using it and try something else. That is what we have learned from your sun theory, planet theory, and dark matter theory.

It sounds like you are intelligent and interested in science, and that's good---keep it up. It also sounds like you have not read very much about science. Rather than proposing new hypotheses right away, you ought to spend a few years just reading as much as you can about what's already been discovered.

Attiyah Zahdeh · 1st March 2011, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by ben m

Attiyah, your dark matter theory is wrong. Your sunlight theory is also wrong. Your planet theory is also wrong. Your Big-Bang-ideas-came-from-Torah theory is also wrong.

This tells us something important. What thought processes are you using to construct these theories? That thought process doesn't work very well. Please stop using it and try something else. That is what we have learned from your sun theory, planet theory, and dark matter theory.

It sounds like you are intelligent and interested in science, and that's good---keep it up. It also sounds like you have not read very much about science. Rather than proposing new hypotheses right away, you ought to spend a few years just reading as much as you can about what's already been discovered.

One of the two (me and you) is really wrong. Doubtelessly, Attiyah is not that one.

Reality Check · 1st March 2011, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh

One of the two (me and you) is really wrong. Doubtelessly, Attiyah is not that one.

Actually one (or more) of the many of us (you, me, ben m, etc.) is wrong.

Doubtlessly (given the ignorance of the nature of dark matter in this thread and the other threads where you have stated similar unphysical or just wrong hypotheses), the chances are that it is you.

ben m · 1st March 2011, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh

One of the two (me and you) is really wrong. Doubtelessly, Attiyah is not that one.

You did not show any evidence for any of your theories. Multiple people showed clear and convincing evidence against each of your theories. In my world, that means your theory is wrong.

dafydd · 1st March 2011, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh

One of the two (me and you) is really wrong. Doubtelessly, Attiyah is not that one.

You are wrong,that is beyond doubt. Have you ever studied physics?

I Ratant · 1st March 2011, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

You are wrong,that is beyond doubt. Have you ever studied physics?

.
He oughta get together with Bishadi.
Sounds like the same problems.

Fnord · 1st March 2011, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh

One of the two (me and you) is really wrong. Doubtelessly, Attiyah is not that one.

Attiyah, your claims are false and your reasoning is fallacious.

Fnord · 1st March 2011, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by I Ratant

He oughta get together with Bishadi. Sounds like the same problems.

Come to think of it ... why is it that Bishadi's posts have dropped off just before Attiyah's posts have ramped up?

John Jones · 1st March 2011, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh

One of the two (me and you) is really wrong. Doubtelessly, Attiyah is not that one.

Reported as a sock puppet of you-know-who.

Not really.

Fnord · 1st March 2011, 06:52 PM

Googling "Attiyah Zahdeh" reveals his long history of logging into one science-based website after another and being shown every time that his claims are invalid and that his reasoning is fallacious.

Nowhere have I found any posts of his that demonstrate him having received even a primary education in general science.

Attiyah Zahdeh · 1st March 2011, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Actually one (or more) of the many of us (you, me, ben m, etc.) is wrong.

Doubtlessly (given the ignorance of the nature of dark matter in this thread and the other threads where you have stated similar unphysical or just wrong hypotheses), the chances are that it is you.

“Attiyah’s reality check” principle:
Saying that the “Reality Check” of the JREF is always wrong, your chances to be thoroughly and actually right will be the certain reality.

AdMan · 1st March 2011, 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh

“Attiyah’s reality check” principle:
Saying that the “Reality Check” of the JREF is always wrong, your chances to be thoroughly and actually right will be the certain reality.

The large red font rule in action!

Anything in a large, red font is automatically true. JREF rule.

Andrew Wiggin · 1st March 2011, 10:27 PM

I think the OP is using the 'who flung dung' principle of research, where the researcher (used in the loosest sense) flings lots of ideas against the wall, hoping that one of them will stick, and that someday someone else will prove it, letting the OP link back to the thread and take credit.

I think we should bear in mind that the OP's first ever post here at the forum was one in a thread on the physics of flight, (in the atmospheric sense, airplane wings and such) asking how that allowed the flights to the moon. Questions like that aren't even wrong; they indicate not only lack of facts but lack of a framework to hang those facts on. We're not dealing with someone with an education, so I'd suggest a gentle approach; pointing out where he's wrong is likely going to places his background hasn't prepared him for. It might be better to just not engage. I know I'm not the best example of that, but I try. I've actually resisted several urges to snark today, and if I can do it...

One further possiblity is that we're engaging with a suspended member's sock. The fact that the OP had one post, three years ago, then began posting again a few days ago, lends support to that option. I can think of at least one poster who meets the criteria of interest in fringe physics, lack of physics education, a first language other than english, and a current suspension. I notice that suspensions seem to be getting longer, and while a member on a three day suspension might not drag out an old sock, one on a 30 day might feel more need. I'll have to leave that one to the mods.

Attiyah Zahdeh · 1st March 2011, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

I think the OP is using the 'who flung dung' principle of research, where the researcher (used in the loosest sense) flings lots of ideas against the wall, hoping that one of them will stick, and that someday someone else will prove it, letting the OP link back to the thread and take credit.

I think we should bear in mind that the OP's first ever post here at the forum was one in a thread on the physics of flight, (in the atmospheric sense, airplane wings and such) asking how that allowed the flights to the moon. Questions like that aren't even wrong; they indicate not only lack of facts but lack of a framework to hang those facts on. We're not dealing with someone with an education, so I'd suggest a gentle approach; pointing out where he's wrong is likely going to places his background hasn't prepared him for. It might be better to just not engage. I know I'm not the best example of that, but I try. I've actually resisted several urges to snark today, and if I can do it...

One further possiblity is that we're engaging with a suspended member's sock. The fact that the OP had one post, three years ago, then began posting again a few days ago, lends support to that option. I can think of at least one poster who meets the criteria of interest in fringe physics, lack of physics education, a first language other than english, and a current suspension. I notice that suspensions seem to be getting longer, and while a member on a three day suspension might not drag out an old sock, one on a 30 day might feel more need. I'll have to leave that one to the mods.

Such comments are traditionally the only means of those who feel their failure to discuss with open mind. Moreover, they consider that the moderators are dictators.

wollery · 1st March 2011, 11:51 PM

So what you're saying is that gravity acts twice over, you get gravity from masses, and then extra gravity from the gravity.

Is that right?

Rincewind · 2nd March 2011, 12:06 AM

So - if point 7 is correct, where's my share of Dark Matter?

I want it...

NOW!!!

Attiyah Zahdeh · 2nd March 2011, 01:05 AM

Originally Posted by Rincewind

So - if point 7 is correct, where's my share of Dark Matter?

I want it...

NOW!!!

Please read points 6 & 7:

6- At any time, the dark matter in any volume of the universe is proportional to the gravitational forces acting at the gravitational centers filling it at that time.
7- Either every object or every place in the universe has its own ever changing share of the dark matter.

So, when your "NOW" becoms my "NOW", you can judge that it is inside your "NOW". Please, at what time do you want me to catch your share of dark matter?

Dave Rogers · 2nd March 2011, 01:34 AM

Originally Posted by wollery

So what you're saying is that gravity acts twice over, you get gravity from masses, and then extra gravity from the gravity.

That was how I read it. The question is, does the extra gravity give you its own stock of extra-extra gravity?

If so, what is the functional relationship of the extra gravity G(n+1) to the gravity G(n) that generated it? There are two possibilities; either the series of additional contributions is divergent, in which case the gravitational constant is infinite and the existence of the Universe is fundamentally impossible, or the series of additional contributions is convergent, in which case the sum of all the contributions to the total gravitational effect is simply a fixed multiple of the first order gravitational constant. We can therefore define a new gravitational constant - let's call it G' - which is a constant multiple of the first order gravitational constant G, i.e. G' = KG.

If not, there must be some proportionality constant between the additional gravity and the original gravity; let's call it (K-1). So the new gravitational constant G' = G + (K-1)G = KG , again a constant multiple of G.

Thus, the infinite series gives us a new gravitational constant G' which is a simple multiple of the first order gravitational constant G. We can simply set G'=6.67428x10^11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2, from centuries of observation and experiment. We do not know G or K, but knowledge of neither is necessary, as their product is invariant.

We therefore find that Attiyah's theory of dark matter simply reproduces the predictions of Newton's theory, but unnecessarily and arbitrarily introduces two new and unknown quantities in order to do so. It is therefore rejected on the basis of Occam's Razor.

Dave

Aepervius · 2nd March 2011, 03:26 AM

"not even wrong" would be quite a fitting answer to the op.

Mojo · 2nd March 2011, 03:54 AM

Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh

“Attiyah’s reality check” principle:
Saying that the “Reality Check” of the JREF is always wrong, your chances to be thoroughly and actually right will be the certain reality.

20 points.

Would anyone like to figure out a score for the OP?

Rincewind · 2nd March 2011, 04:20 AM

Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh

Please read points 6 & 7:

6- At any time, the dark matter in any volume of the universe is proportional to the gravitational forces acting at the gravitational centers filling it at that time.
7- Either every object or every place in the universe has its own ever changing share of the dark matter.

So, when your "NOW" becoms my "NOW", you can judge that it is inside your "NOW". Please, at what time do you want me to catch your share of dark matter?

Whenever...

Monketey Ghost · 2nd March 2011, 04:36 AM

Can you make my share into a tasty coffee beverage?

Cuddles · 2nd March 2011, 05:48 AM

Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh

One of the two (me and you) is really wrong.

Yes.

Reality Check · 2nd March 2011, 06:41 AM

Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh

“Attiyah’s reality check” principle:
Saying that the “Reality Check” of the JREF is always wrong, your chances to be thoroughly and actually right will be the certain reality.

Reality Check's observation:

Saying that the “Attiyah Zahdeh” of the universe is always wrong, your chances to be thoroughly and actually right will be the certain reality because he has posted his ideas over many years and

Never showed any great knowledge of physics (note the mistakes in his OP)
Never showed any basic knowledge of mathematics (note the total lack of it in his OP)
Never showed that he has the ability to learn physics or mathematics since he has been posting these invalid ideas for years. For example this topic is at least 3 years old. His Sun idea is even older.

Attiyah Zahdeh, the primary reason that your dark matter idea is wrong is because you are treating centers of mass ("gravitational centers") as real objects. Centers of mass are not real objects. They are mathematical points. They have no mass. They exert no gravitational force. Swapping to a center of mass reference frame often simplifies calculations.

ETA
If you want to learn more about dark matter then there is a good series of posts by the astrophysicist Ethan Siegel

CORed · 2nd March 2011, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

I believe that we have a new Einstein here folks.

Even though he can't count?

dafydd · 2nd March 2011, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh

Such comments are traditionally the only means of those who feel their failure to discuss with open mind. Moreover, they consider that the moderators are dictators.

Your English has just improved dramatically. Troll?

Twiler · 2nd March 2011, 10:15 AM

Attiyah, I may have passed off your ideas as my own and become heralded as a rising star in the scientific community (in a way that isn't verifiable), or I may not.

Which do you think is true?

dogjones · 2nd March 2011, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Yes.

1st March 2011, 12:37 PM	#4
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,795	The OP shows a large amount of ignorance of what dark matter is. All it does is describe gravity and center of mass - and gets that wrong! "Gravitational centers" (i.e. centers of mass) are mathematical points that have no mass of their own. The gravitational forces from the real objects in the system can be considered as acting from the center of mass.
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2 Last edited by Reality Check; 1st March 2011 at 12:41 PM.

1st March 2011, 12:51 PM	#7
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,795	Originally Posted by drkitten Did anyone else notice that point 3 is wrong twice? I would say point 2 and the first point 3 are right. Every point in the universe will be the center of mass of 2 other points. The second point 3 is just wrong - the movements of centers of mass with the movements of matter in the universe has nothing to do with water molecules. 4 is gibberish unless he is talking about the simple use of centers of mass reference frames. 5 shows ignorance. Dark matter is matter that is dark - not centers of mass. 6 and 7 are just goofy.
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

1st March 2011, 12:53 PM	#9
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by Reality Check I would say point 2 and the first point 3 are right. Every point in the universe will be the center of mass of 2 other points. You'd be wrong, then. It depends on the distribution of mass, now, doesn't it? Since we can see that mass is not uniformly distributed,.... ETA: actually, 2 and 3.1 are wrong in a possibly interesting way. If points 1, 2, and 3.1 were correct, it would follow that the universe is both convex and closed.
	Last edited by drkitten; 1st March 2011 at 12:56 PM.

1st March 2011, 12:54 PM	#10
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,391	Originally Posted by dafydd I believe that we have a new Einstein here folks. Jerry Einstein? He wears a Spider Man costume and yells at traffic on Michigan Avenue.
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

1st March 2011, 12:59 PM	#11
LarianLeQuella Elf Wino Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun Posts: 1,995	Is there some sort of contest going on somewhere that is trying to be as wrong as possible? I think we have found the #1 contender for that title!
	__________________ My crappy blog that no one should be forced to read. Ever... But I like traffic and comments, so have at it if you please. Larian LeQuella Armyn ab Treanid

1st March 2011, 12:29 PM	#2
Mashuna Ovis ex Machina Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Welsh Wales Posts: 6,579	I'll just file this alongside your theories of the sun and the Big Bang, ok?

1st March 2011, 12:34 PM	#3
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,257	Well, point 1 is correct, anyway.

1st March 2011, 12:37 PM	#5
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh 1- Due to the universal gravitation, either any pair or any group of objects should have their own gravitational center. Yes. Quote: 2- All the space and the objects of the universe are completely full of the gravitational centers. No. Quote: 3- At any time, every point in the whole universe is a position of at least one gravitational center. No. Quote: 3- Due to the continuing motions of the objects of the universe, and due to continuing change of their relative positions, the gravitational centers either in the space or inside the objects themselves behave such as the molecules in the boiling water. Quote: 4- In their turn, the gravitational centers themselves have their own universal gravitational effect which is similar to that due to the real objects. Quote: 5- The universal gravitational effect of the gravitational centers is the so-called dark matter. No in angry fruit salad colors. Quote: 6- At any time, the dark matter in any volume of the universe is proportional to the gravitational forces acting at the gravitational centers filling it at that time. Quote: 7- Either every object or every place in the universe has its own ever changing share of the dark matter.

1st March 2011, 12:38 PM	#6
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by Sceptic Tank Well, point 1 is correct, anyway. Did anyone else notice that point 3 is wrong twice?

1st March 2011, 12:51 PM	#8
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,456	I believe that we have a new Einstein here folks.

1st March 2011, 01:19 PM	#12
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,795	Originally Posted by drkitten You'd be wrong, then. It depends on the distribution of mass, now, doesn't it? Since we can see that mass is not uniformly distributed,.... ETA: actually, 2 and 3.1 are wrong in a possibly interesting way. If points 1, 2, and 3.1 were correct, it would follow that the universe is both convex and closed. That is right - we would have to use a homogeneous universe (unless we allow the trival case of the center of mass of two points without mass ). Even with a non-uniform distribution of mass, I would guess that it would take a rather special arrangement where a point would not be the center of mass of some collection of masses.
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

1st March 2011, 01:46 PM	#13
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,648	Attiyah, your dark matter theory is wrong. Your sunlight theory is also wrong. Your planet theory is also wrong. Your Big-Bang-ideas-came-from-Torah theory is also wrong. This tells us something important. What thought processes are you using to construct these theories? That thought process doesn't work very well. Please stop using it and try something else. That is what we have learned from your sun theory, planet theory, and dark matter theory. It sounds like you are intelligent and interested in science, and that's good---keep it up. It also sounds like you have not read very much about science. Rather than proposing new hypotheses right away, you ought to spend a few years just reading as much as you can about what's already been discovered.
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,648

1st March 2011, 02:01 PM	#14
Attiyah Zahdeh Scholar Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 63	Originally Posted by ben m Attiyah, your dark matter theory is wrong. Your sunlight theory is also wrong. Your planet theory is also wrong. Your Big-Bang-ideas-came-from-Torah theory is also wrong. This tells us something important. What thought processes are you using to construct these theories? That thought process doesn't work very well. Please stop using it and try something else. That is what we have learned from your sun theory, planet theory, and dark matter theory. It sounds like you are intelligent and interested in science, and that's good---keep it up. It also sounds like you have not read very much about science. Rather than proposing new hypotheses right away, you ought to spend a few years just reading as much as you can about what's already been discovered. One of the two (me and you) is really wrong. Doubtelessly, Attiyah is not that one.
Attiyah Zahdeh Scholar Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 63

1st March 2011, 02:21 PM	#15
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,795	Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh One of the two (me and you) is really wrong. Doubtelessly, Attiyah is not that one. Actually one (or more) of the many of us (you, me, ben m, etc.) is wrong. Doubtlessly (given the ignorance of the nature of dark matter in this thread and the other threads where you have stated similar unphysical or just wrong hypotheses), the chances are that it is you.
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

1st March 2011, 05:09 PM	#16
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,648	Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh One of the two (me and you) is really wrong. Doubtelessly, Attiyah is not that one. You did not show any evidence for any of your theories. Multiple people showed clear and convincing evidence against each of your theories. In my world, that means your theory is wrong.
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,648

1st March 2011, 05:17 PM	#17
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,456	Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh One of the two (me and you) is really wrong. Doubtelessly, Attiyah is not that one. You are wrong,that is beyond doubt. Have you ever studied physics?

1st March 2011, 05:50 PM	#18
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by dafydd You are wrong,that is beyond doubt. Have you ever studied physics? . He oughta get together with Bishadi. Sounds like the same problems.

1st March 2011, 06:38 PM	#19
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 6,633	Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh One of the two (me and you) is really wrong. Doubtelessly, Attiyah is not that one. Attiyah, your claims are false and your reasoning is fallacious.
	__________________ Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory; Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things; *and Knowledge* is the reasoned belief in provable things. Belief itself proves nothing.**

1st March 2011, 06:42 PM	#20
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 6,633	Originally Posted by I Ratant He oughta get together with Bishadi. Sounds like the same problems. Come to think of it ... why is it that Bishadi's posts have dropped off just before Attiyah's posts have ramped up?
	__________________ Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory; Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things; *and Knowledge* is the reasoned belief in provable things. Belief itself proves nothing.**

1st March 2011, 06:44 PM	#21
John Jones Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 3,712	Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh One of the two (me and you) is really wrong. Doubtelessly, Attiyah is not that one. Reported as a sock puppet of you-know-who. Not really.
John Jones Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 3,712

1st March 2011, 06:52 PM	#22
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 6,633	Googling "Attiyah Zahdeh" reveals his long history of logging into one science-based website after another and being shown every time that his claims are invalid and that his reasoning is fallacious. Nowhere have I found any posts of his that demonstrate him having received even a primary education in general science.
	__________________ Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory; Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things; *and Knowledge* is the reasoned belief in provable things. Belief itself proves nothing.**

1st March 2011, 10:01 PM	#23
Attiyah Zahdeh Scholar Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 63	Originally Posted by Reality Check Actually one (or more) of the many of us (you, me, ben m, etc.) is wrong. Doubtlessly (given the ignorance of the nature of dark matter in this thread and the other threads where you have stated similar unphysical or just wrong hypotheses), the chances are that it is you. “Attiyah’s reality check” principle: Saying that the “Reality Check” of the JREF is always wrong, your chances to be thoroughly and actually right will be the certain reality.
Attiyah Zahdeh Scholar Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 63	Last edited by Attiyah Zahdeh; 1st March 2011 at 11:36 PM.

1st March 2011, 10:07 PM	#24
AdMan Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 7,168	Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh “Attiyah’s reality check” principle: Saying that the “Reality Check” of the JREF is always wrong, your chances to be thoroughly and actually right will be the certain reality. The large red font rule in action! Anything in a large, red font is automatically true. JREF rule.
AdMan Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 7,168	__________________ It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan Last edited by AdMan; 1st March 2011 at 10:08 PM.

1st March 2011, 10:27 PM	#25
Andrew Wiggin Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: A small planet named for its dirt. You'll find it filed under 'mostly harmless' Posts: 2,914	I think the OP is using the 'who flung dung' principle of research, where the researcher (used in the loosest sense) flings lots of ideas against the wall, hoping that one of them will stick, and that someday someone else will prove it, letting the OP link back to the thread and take credit. I think we should bear in mind that the OP's first ever post here at the forum was one in a thread on the physics of flight, (in the atmospheric sense, airplane wings and such) asking how that allowed the flights to the moon. Questions like that aren't even wrong; they indicate not only lack of facts but lack of a framework to hang those facts on. We're not dealing with someone with an education, so I'd suggest a gentle approach; pointing out where he's wrong is likely going to places his background hasn't prepared him for. It might be better to just not engage. I know I'm not the best example of that, but I try. I've actually resisted several urges to snark today, and if I can do it... One further possiblity is that we're engaging with a suspended member's sock. The fact that the OP had one post, three years ago, then began posting again a few days ago, lends support to that option. I can think of at least one poster who meets the criteria of interest in fringe physics, lack of physics education, a first language other than english, and a current suspension. I notice that suspensions seem to be getting longer, and while a member on a three day suspension might not drag out an old sock, one on a 30 day might feel more need. I'll have to leave that one to the mods.
	__________________ "Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world." - Arthur Schopenhauer "New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells Last edited by Andrew Wiggin; 1st March 2011 at 10:28 PM. Reason: clarification

1st March 2011, 11:46 PM	#26
Attiyah Zahdeh Scholar Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 63	Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin I think the OP is using the 'who flung dung' principle of research, where the researcher (used in the loosest sense) flings lots of ideas against the wall, hoping that one of them will stick, and that someday someone else will prove it, letting the OP link back to the thread and take credit. I think we should bear in mind that the OP's first ever post here at the forum was one in a thread on the physics of flight, (in the atmospheric sense, airplane wings and such) asking how that allowed the flights to the moon. Questions like that aren't even wrong; they indicate not only lack of facts but lack of a framework to hang those facts on. We're not dealing with someone with an education, so I'd suggest a gentle approach; pointing out where he's wrong is likely going to places his background hasn't prepared him for. It might be better to just not engage. I know I'm not the best example of that, but I try. I've actually resisted several urges to snark today, and if I can do it... One further possiblity is that we're engaging with a suspended member's sock. The fact that the OP had one post, three years ago, then began posting again a few days ago, lends support to that option. I can think of at least one poster who meets the criteria of interest in fringe physics, lack of physics education, a first language other than english, and a current suspension. I notice that suspensions seem to be getting longer, and while a member on a three day suspension might not drag out an old sock, one on a 30 day might feel more need. I'll have to leave that one to the mods. Such comments are traditionally the only means of those who feel their failure to discuss with open mind. Moreover, they consider that the moderators are dictators.
Attiyah Zahdeh Scholar Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 63

1st March 2011, 11:51 PM	#27
wollery Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs! TLA Winner Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Land of Eternal Hope Posts: 10,313	So what you're saying is that gravity acts twice over, you get gravity from masses, and then extra gravity from the gravity. Is that right?
	__________________ "You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad "Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin

2nd March 2011, 12:06 AM	#28
Rincewind Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,161	So - if point 7 is correct, where's my share of Dark Matter? I want it... NOW!!!

2nd March 2011, 01:05 AM	#29
Attiyah Zahdeh Scholar Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 63	Originally Posted by Rincewind So - if point 7 is correct, where's my share of Dark Matter? I want it... NOW!!! Please read points 6 & 7: 6- At any time, the dark matter in any volume of the universe is proportional to the gravitational forces acting at the gravitational centers filling it at that time. 7- Either every object or every place in the universe has its own ever changing share of the dark matter. So, when your "NOW" becoms my "NOW", you can judge that it is inside your "NOW". Please, at what time do you want me to catch your share of dark matter?
Attiyah Zahdeh Scholar Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 63

2nd March 2011, 01:34 AM	#30
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by wollery So what you're saying is that gravity acts twice over, you get gravity from masses, and then extra gravity from the gravity. That was how I read it. The question is, does the extra gravity give you its own stock of extra-extra gravity? If so, what is the functional relationship of the extra gravity G(n+1) to the gravity G(n) that generated it? There are two possibilities; either the series of additional contributions is divergent, in which case the gravitational constant is infinite and the existence of the Universe is fundamentally impossible, or the series of additional contributions is convergent, in which case the sum of all the contributions to the total gravitational effect is simply a fixed multiple of the first order gravitational constant. We can therefore define a new gravitational constant - let's call it G' - which is a constant multiple of the first order gravitational constant G, i.e. G' = KG. If not, there must be some proportionality constant between the additional gravity and the original gravity; let's call it (K-1). So the new gravitational constant G' = G + (K-1)G = KG , again a constant multiple of G. Thus, the infinite series gives us a new gravitational constant G' which is a simple multiple of the first order gravitational constant G. We can simply set G'=6.67428x10^11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2, from centuries of observation and experiment. We do not know G or K, but knowledge of neither is necessary, as their product is invariant. We therefore find that Attiyah's theory of dark matter simply reproduces the predictions of Newton's theory, but unnecessarily and arbitrarily introduces two new and unknown quantities in order to do so. It is therefore rejected on the basis of Occam's Razor. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

2nd March 2011, 03:26 AM	#31
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,750	"not even wrong" would be quite a fitting answer to the op.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.

2nd March 2011, 03:54 AM	#32
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,089	Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh “Attiyah’s reality check” principle: Saying that the “Reality Check” of the JREF is always wrong, your chances to be thoroughly and actually right will be the certain reality. 20 points. Would anyone like to figure out a score for the OP?
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

2nd March 2011, 04:20 AM	#33
Rincewind Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,161	Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh Please read points 6 & 7: 6- At any time, the dark matter in any volume of the universe is proportional to the gravitational forces acting at the gravitational centers filling it at that time. 7- Either every object or every place in the universe has its own ever changing share of the dark matter. So, when your "NOW" becoms my "NOW", you can judge that it is inside your "NOW". Please, at what time do you want me to catch your share of dark matter? Whenever...

2nd March 2011, 04:36 AM	#34
Monketey Ghost Body of Work Join Date: May 2003 Location: I'm on your screen! Posts: 14,808	Can you make my share into a tasty coffee beverage?
	__________________ _{The membership of this forum is henceforth to refer to me as potato-headed Bobby} _{SSKCAS, member in long standing}

2nd March 2011, 05:48 AM	#35
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,580	Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh One of the two (me and you) is really wrong. Yes. It's you.
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

2nd March 2011, 06:41 AM	#36
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,795	Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh “Attiyah’s reality check” principle: Saying that the “Reality Check” of the JREF is always wrong, your chances to be thoroughly and actually right will be the certain reality. Reality Check's observation: Saying that the “Attiyah Zahdeh” of the universe is always wrong, your chances to be thoroughly and actually right will be the certain reality because he has posted his ideas over many years and Never showed any great knowledge of physics (note the mistakes in his OP) Never showed any basic knowledge of mathematics (note the total lack of it in his OP) Never showed that he has the ability to learn physics or mathematics since he has been posting these invalid ideas for years. For example this topic is at least 3 years old. His Sun idea is even older. Attiyah Zahdeh, the primary reason that your dark matter idea is wrong is because you are treating centers of mass ("gravitational centers") as real objects. Centers of mass are not real objects. They are mathematical points. They have no mass. They exert no gravitational force. Swapping to a center of mass reference frame often simplifies calculations. ETA If you want to learn more about dark matter then there is a good series of posts by the astrophysicist Ethan Siegel Dark Matter Part I: How Much Matter is There? Dark Matter Part II: How much Normal Matter is there? Dark Matter Part III: Dark Matter or Modified Gravity? Dark Matter Part 3.5: When Clusters Collide! Dear MOND: Time for a New Song! (Dark Matter pt. IV)
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2 Last edited by Reality Check; 2nd March 2011 at 06:55 AM.