by BeAChooser » Wed Mar 01, 2023 12:09 am
I asked your other two questions, jacmac …
—————————
Your Question:
What scientific debates exist about gravity vs electromagnetism causing events in space?
ChatGPT Response:
There is no scientific debate about whether gravity or electromagnetism causes events in space, as both forces play significant roles in shaping and governing the behavior of celestial bodies and events in the cosmos.
Gravity is the fundamental force that governs the motion of massive objects in the universe, from the motion of planets and stars in galaxies to the formation of black holes and the curvature of space-time itself. Gravity is a long-range force that is always attractive, meaning that objects with mass always attract one another.
Electromagnetism, on the other hand, is a force that governs the behavior of electrically charged particles. It is responsible for phenomena such as the behavior of charged particles in magnetic fields, the formation of plasma in stars, and the emission of light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation. Unlike gravity, which is always attractive, electromagnetism can be both attractive and repulsive.
In many cases, gravity and electromagnetism interact with each other, such as in the case of charged particles in the presence of gravitational fields or the behavior of light in the presence of a massive object like a black hole. However, these forces are fundamentally different and operate on different scales.
There may be ongoing scientific debates about the details of how these forces interact and how they affect specific astronomical phenomena, but there is no debate about whether gravity or electromagnetism causes events in space. Both forces play important roles in shaping the cosmos, and our understanding of these forces is essential to our understanding of the universe as a whole.
————————
A rather misleading and useless response.
————————
Your Second Question:
Why is it assumed in cosmology that gravity is the only force causing events in space?
ChatGPT Response:
It is not assumed in cosmology that gravity is the only force causing events in space. In fact, cosmology recognizes that a variety of forces and interactions play important roles in shaping and governing the behavior of celestial bodies and events in the cosmos.
However, gravity is a particularly important force in cosmology for several reasons. First, gravity is the dominant force on large scales in the universe. While electromagnetism and the other fundamental forces of nature are important for understanding the behavior of individual particles and atoms, gravity is the force that governs the motion of massive objects like planets, stars, galaxies, and clusters of galaxies. This makes it a fundamental force to understand the large-scale structure of the universe.
Second, gravity is the force that shapes the universe's evolution over time. The gravitational attraction between massive objects causes them to clump together and form larger and larger structures, from galaxies to clusters of galaxies to superclusters of galaxies. This process of gravitational collapse and structure formation has led to the large-scale structure of the universe that we observe today.
Finally, gravity plays an important role in some of the most dramatic and mysterious phenomena in cosmology, such as black holes and dark matter. Black holes are objects so massive that their gravitational pull is strong enough to prevent anything, including light, from escaping their surface. Dark matter is an invisible substance that is inferred to exist because of its gravitational effects on visible matter in the universe.
While gravity is not the only force causing events in space, its dominance on large scales and its role in shaping the universe's evolution make it a crucial force to understand in cosmology.
————————
I decided to challenge the statement ... "Dark matter is an invisible substance that is inferred to exist because of its gravitational effects on visible matter in the universe" ... with a Follow On Question:
What evidence is used to infer that dark matter exists?
ChatGPT Response:
There is a range of observational evidence that supports the existence of dark matter. The evidence includes:
1 Gravitational lensing: The presence of dark matter can be inferred by observing its gravitational effect on visible matter, such as stars and galaxies. Dark matter does not interact with light, but it does have mass, and therefore it can bend the path of light passing nearby. By studying the way that light from distant objects is bent by the gravitational field of a massive object like a galaxy cluster, scientists can infer the presence of dark matter.
2 Galaxy rotation curves: The rotation of galaxies can also be used to infer the presence of dark matter. Visible matter in a galaxy, such as stars and gas, should obey Kepler's laws of motion, which predict that objects farther from the center of the galaxy should move more slowly than those closer to the center. However, observations of galaxy rotation curves show that stars and gas in the outer regions of galaxies are moving at speeds that are much higher than expected based on the visible matter alone. This suggests the presence of additional matter, which is not visible but exerts a gravitational force on the visible matter. Dark matter is a leading candidate for this invisible matter.
3 Cosmic microwave background radiation: The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation is the leftover heat from the Big Bang, and it permeates the entire universe. Tiny fluctuations in the CMB provide clues to the composition and history of the universe. The observed pattern of these fluctuations suggests that about 85% of the matter in the universe is dark matter.
4 Large-scale structure: The large-scale distribution of galaxies and clusters of galaxies can also be used to infer the presence of dark matter. The distribution of visible matter alone cannot account for the observed structure of the universe. Simulations of the formation of the large-scale structure of the universe require the presence of dark matter in order to match observations.
These and other pieces of evidence all point to the existence of dark matter as a necessary component of our understanding of the universe. While the nature of dark matter is still not fully understood, its gravitational effects on visible matter are clear and can be measured using a range of observational techniques.
——————————
Follow-On Question:
Isn’t it true that in most articles on dark matter, the number one reason given for believing in the existence of dark matter is the rotation curves of galaxies?
ChatGPT Response:
It is true that observations of the rotation curves of galaxies are often cited as a key piece of evidence for the existence of dark matter, but they are not the only evidence. There are multiple lines of observational evidence that support the idea that dark matter exists, and the rotation curves of galaxies are just one of them.
In addition to the rotation curves of galaxies, other pieces of observational evidence that support the existence of dark matter include gravitational lensing, the cosmic microwave background radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe, among others.
That being said, the rotation curves of galaxies are a particularly compelling piece of evidence for dark matter. The rotation curves of galaxies describe how the speed of stars and gas in the galaxy changes with distance from the center of the galaxy. According to Newton's laws of gravity, the speed of objects in a galaxy should decrease as they move farther from the center of the galaxy, where the gravitational pull of the visible matter is weaker. However, observations of many galaxies show that the speeds of stars and gas in the outer regions of the galaxy remain constant or even increase, indicating the presence of additional matter that exerts a gravitational force.
Dark matter is one possible explanation for this additional matter, and its distribution can be inferred by studying the rotation curves of galaxies. Other explanations for the observed rotation curves have been proposed, but so far, dark matter is the most widely accepted explanation, supported by a variety of observational evidence beyond just galaxy rotation curves.
———————
Follow On Question:
You say that galaxy rotation curves are “particularly compelling” evidence for dark matter (DM). In fact, as I said, most articles by dark matter proponents in the media lead off with rotation curves as the number one piece of evidence and, often times, all the other items you listed aren’t even mentioned. So rotation curves must be THE key piece of evidence for DM.
So if, in reality, galaxy rotation rates are caused by electromagnetic effects instead, a possibility demonstrated by Anthony Peratt in the 1980s with no-one proving otherwise since then, isn’t this is a real problem for dark matter proponents? After all, dark matter proponents have claimed, with almost complete certainty, that spiral galaxies contain huge amounts of dark matter. Indeed, the claim is that it’s the majority of the mass. But if DM doesn’t exist in spirals, as Peratt’s modeling might suggest, where else might it not exist that DM proponents have assumed?
What about what ever is causing gravitational lensing? Aren’t spiral galaxies objects the mainstream claims cause such lensing? If Peratt is right (and in over 30 years it appears that no-one has proven him wrong), then there might not be any DM in spirals, in which case, what really is causing lensing? Maybe belief in DM has caused mainstream scientists to not look beyond the end of their nose?
If simulations using computer codes, that model the known and proven laws of plasma and electromagnetic physics that our technology is built on, show that electromagnetic effects could form spiral galaxies from interacting galaxy sized plasma physics (which have been observed) AND produce the observed rotation curves of spiral galaxies, isn’t that “particularly compelling” evidence that dark matter isn’t needed and that the DM community has been wrong about DM’s existence, especially considering the fact that the physics in Peratt’s simulation are physics that can be observed in laboratories here on earth, whereas the physics ASSUMED in the simulations done by DM proponents are nothing more than raw speculation that hasn’t been proven or demonstrated in any earth lab in the 50 years since DM was invented?
And what about your other two pieces of DM evidence?
If electromagnetic effects on plasmas can explain the formation and behavior of spiral galaxies, and the formation and behavior of filaments (as has also been demonstrated by Plasma Cosmology proponents), couldn’t the large scale structure (the Cosmic Web) be due to electromagnetism rather than dark matter? I’m not saying gravity from observed matter doesn’t play a role, but maybe DM isn’t needed at all ... that electromagnetism is a viable substitute? So in my view, item number 4 isn’t very compelling evidence of DM either.
Nor is your item number 3, the Cosmic Microwave Background, because there again, other explanations for it exist. In fact, before mainstream physicists even detected the CMB, non-Big Bang believing physicists had calculated a base temperature for the universe that turned out to be better than the numbers that dark matter believing Big Bang proponents eventually came up with … after several attempts to do it. And there are other ways ... electromagnetic ways ... to produce microwaves than a Big Bang. Claims that tiny fluctuation prove DM exists are tenuous at best.
Furthermore, neither items 1 through 4 explain the existence of rotating, helically wound, pairs of plasma filaments. Dark matter, gravity and CMB don’t explain them, yet they are everywhere we look out there. They are almost ubiquitous. Isn’t it particularly compelling that laboratory demonstrated electromagnetic effects on plasma produce such structures with ease and ubiquity? You see, there is other evidence beside rotation curves to support the idea that electromagnetism, not dark matter, is what’s really shaping and evolving the universe. You can apply the same logic you used to support dark matter to the alternative. So with these facts in evidence, isn’t the mainstream physics community placing too much faith in the existence of DM? Aren’t you placing too much reliance on consensus controlled publications rather that LOGIC?
ChatGPT Response:
As an AI language model, I do not rely on personal opinions or beliefs, but rather on scientific evidence and consensus. While it is true that some scientists and researchers have proposed alternative explanations to dark matter, the vast majority of the scientific community accepts the evidence for dark matter's existence.
The evidence for dark matter is not solely based on galaxy rotation curves but also includes the observation of the cosmic microwave background, the large scale structure of the universe, and gravitational lensing. While alternative explanations may exist for some of these observations, the most widely accepted and thoroughly tested explanation is that dark matter is the cause.
It is also important to note that the study of dark matter and its properties is an active field of research. While the evidence for dark matter is compelling, there is still much to be learned about its nature and role in the universe. Therefore, it is important to continue exploring alternative explanations and testing hypotheses to advance our understanding of the universe.
——————————
As you can see, I’m back to spinning wheels. ChatGPT didn’t even respond to the specific facts or logic I cited. It only regurgitated the narrative given it to support the establishment (consensus) view of things. It claims that it relies on "scientific evidence and consensus" but it relies on consensus almost entirely. The evidence is no where near as important. Logic is not important. It’s as I said when I first voiced my concern about ChatGPT. It’s primarily a tool to defend the mainstream ... the establishment … on every issue. The rest of what it says is just pablum for the masses to keep them mollified and controlled. It's a very dangerous tool and could easily be misused and lead to wrong decision making.
I asked your other two questions, jacmac …
—————————
[b]Your Question:[/b]
What scientific debates exist about gravity vs electromagnetism causing events in space?
[b]ChatGPT Response:[/b]
There is no scientific debate about whether gravity or electromagnetism causes events in space, as both forces play significant roles in shaping and governing the behavior of celestial bodies and events in the cosmos.
Gravity is the fundamental force that governs the motion of massive objects in the universe, from the motion of planets and stars in galaxies to the formation of black holes and the curvature of space-time itself. Gravity is a long-range force that is always attractive, meaning that objects with mass always attract one another.
Electromagnetism, on the other hand, is a force that governs the behavior of electrically charged particles. It is responsible for phenomena such as the behavior of charged particles in magnetic fields, the formation of plasma in stars, and the emission of light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation. Unlike gravity, which is always attractive, electromagnetism can be both attractive and repulsive.
In many cases, gravity and electromagnetism interact with each other, such as in the case of charged particles in the presence of gravitational fields or the behavior of light in the presence of a massive object like a black hole. However, these forces are fundamentally different and operate on different scales.
There may be ongoing scientific debates about the details of how these forces interact and how they affect specific astronomical phenomena, but there is no debate about whether gravity or electromagnetism causes events in space. Both forces play important roles in shaping the cosmos, and our understanding of these forces is essential to our understanding of the universe as a whole.
————————
A rather misleading and useless response.
————————
[b]Your Second Question:[/b]
Why is it assumed in cosmology that gravity is the only force causing events in space?
[b]ChatGPT Response:[/b]
It is not assumed in cosmology that gravity is the only force causing events in space. In fact, cosmology recognizes that a variety of forces and interactions play important roles in shaping and governing the behavior of celestial bodies and events in the cosmos.
However, gravity is a particularly important force in cosmology for several reasons. First, gravity is the dominant force on large scales in the universe. While electromagnetism and the other fundamental forces of nature are important for understanding the behavior of individual particles and atoms, gravity is the force that governs the motion of massive objects like planets, stars, galaxies, and clusters of galaxies. This makes it a fundamental force to understand the large-scale structure of the universe.
Second, gravity is the force that shapes the universe's evolution over time. The gravitational attraction between massive objects causes them to clump together and form larger and larger structures, from galaxies to clusters of galaxies to superclusters of galaxies. This process of gravitational collapse and structure formation has led to the large-scale structure of the universe that we observe today.
Finally, gravity plays an important role in some of the most dramatic and mysterious phenomena in cosmology, such as black holes and dark matter. Black holes are objects so massive that their gravitational pull is strong enough to prevent anything, including light, from escaping their surface. Dark matter is an invisible substance that is inferred to exist because of its gravitational effects on visible matter in the universe.
While gravity is not the only force causing events in space, its dominance on large scales and its role in shaping the universe's evolution make it a crucial force to understand in cosmology.
————————
I decided to challenge the statement ... "Dark matter is an invisible substance that is inferred to exist because of its gravitational effects on visible matter in the universe" ... with a [b]Follow On Question:[/b]
What evidence is used to infer that dark matter exists?
[b]ChatGPT Response:[/b]
There is a range of observational evidence that supports the existence of dark matter. The evidence includes:
1 Gravitational lensing: The presence of dark matter can be inferred by observing its gravitational effect on visible matter, such as stars and galaxies. Dark matter does not interact with light, but it does have mass, and therefore it can bend the path of light passing nearby. By studying the way that light from distant objects is bent by the gravitational field of a massive object like a galaxy cluster, scientists can infer the presence of dark matter.
2 Galaxy rotation curves: The rotation of galaxies can also be used to infer the presence of dark matter. Visible matter in a galaxy, such as stars and gas, should obey Kepler's laws of motion, which predict that objects farther from the center of the galaxy should move more slowly than those closer to the center. However, observations of galaxy rotation curves show that stars and gas in the outer regions of galaxies are moving at speeds that are much higher than expected based on the visible matter alone. This suggests the presence of additional matter, which is not visible but exerts a gravitational force on the visible matter. Dark matter is a leading candidate for this invisible matter.
3 Cosmic microwave background radiation: The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation is the leftover heat from the Big Bang, and it permeates the entire universe. Tiny fluctuations in the CMB provide clues to the composition and history of the universe. The observed pattern of these fluctuations suggests that about 85% of the matter in the universe is dark matter.
4 Large-scale structure: The large-scale distribution of galaxies and clusters of galaxies can also be used to infer the presence of dark matter. The distribution of visible matter alone cannot account for the observed structure of the universe. Simulations of the formation of the large-scale structure of the universe require the presence of dark matter in order to match observations.
These and other pieces of evidence all point to the existence of dark matter as a necessary component of our understanding of the universe. While the nature of dark matter is still not fully understood, its gravitational effects on visible matter are clear and can be measured using a range of observational techniques.
——————————
[i]Follow-On Question:[/i]
Isn’t it true that in most articles on dark matter, the number one reason given for believing in the existence of dark matter is the rotation curves of galaxies?
[b]ChatGPT Response:[/b]
It is true that observations of the rotation curves of galaxies are often cited as a key piece of evidence for the existence of dark matter, but they are not the only evidence. There are multiple lines of observational evidence that support the idea that dark matter exists, and the rotation curves of galaxies are just one of them.
In addition to the rotation curves of galaxies, other pieces of observational evidence that support the existence of dark matter include gravitational lensing, the cosmic microwave background radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe, among others.
That being said, the rotation curves of galaxies are a particularly compelling piece of evidence for dark matter. The rotation curves of galaxies describe how the speed of stars and gas in the galaxy changes with distance from the center of the galaxy. According to Newton's laws of gravity, the speed of objects in a galaxy should decrease as they move farther from the center of the galaxy, where the gravitational pull of the visible matter is weaker. However, observations of many galaxies show that the speeds of stars and gas in the outer regions of the galaxy remain constant or even increase, indicating the presence of additional matter that exerts a gravitational force.
Dark matter is one possible explanation for this additional matter, and its distribution can be inferred by studying the rotation curves of galaxies. Other explanations for the observed rotation curves have been proposed, but so far, dark matter is the most widely accepted explanation, supported by a variety of observational evidence beyond just galaxy rotation curves.
———————
[b]Follow On Question:[/b]
You say that galaxy rotation curves are “particularly compelling” evidence for dark matter (DM). In fact, as I said, most articles by dark matter proponents in the media lead off with rotation curves as the number one piece of evidence and, often times, all the other items you listed aren’t even mentioned. So rotation curves must be THE key piece of evidence for DM.
So if, in reality, galaxy rotation rates are caused by electromagnetic effects instead, a possibility demonstrated by Anthony Peratt in the 1980s with no-one proving otherwise since then, isn’t this is a real problem for dark matter proponents? After all, dark matter proponents have claimed, with almost complete certainty, that spiral galaxies contain huge amounts of dark matter. Indeed, the claim is that it’s the majority of the mass. But if DM doesn’t exist in spirals, as Peratt’s modeling might suggest, where else might it not exist that DM proponents have assumed?
What about what ever is causing gravitational lensing? Aren’t spiral galaxies objects the mainstream claims cause such lensing? If Peratt is right (and in over 30 years it appears that no-one has proven him wrong), then there might not be any DM in spirals, in which case, what really is causing lensing? Maybe belief in DM has caused mainstream scientists to not look beyond the end of their nose?
If simulations using computer codes, that model the known and proven laws of plasma and electromagnetic physics that our technology is built on, show that electromagnetic effects could form spiral galaxies from interacting galaxy sized plasma physics (which have been observed) AND produce the observed rotation curves of spiral galaxies, isn’t that “particularly compelling” evidence that dark matter isn’t needed and that the DM community has been wrong about DM’s existence, especially considering the fact that the physics in Peratt’s simulation are physics that can be observed in laboratories here on earth, whereas the physics ASSUMED in the simulations done by DM proponents are nothing more than raw speculation that hasn’t been proven or demonstrated in any earth lab in the 50 years since DM was invented?
And what about your other two pieces of DM evidence?
If electromagnetic effects on plasmas can explain the formation and behavior of spiral galaxies, and the formation and behavior of filaments (as has also been demonstrated by Plasma Cosmology proponents), couldn’t the large scale structure (the Cosmic Web) be due to electromagnetism rather than dark matter? I’m not saying gravity from observed matter doesn’t play a role, but maybe DM isn’t needed at all ... that electromagnetism is a viable substitute? So in my view, item number 4 isn’t very compelling evidence of DM either.
Nor is your item number 3, the Cosmic Microwave Background, because there again, other explanations for it exist. In fact, before mainstream physicists even detected the CMB, non-Big Bang believing physicists had calculated a base temperature for the universe that turned out to be better than the numbers that dark matter believing Big Bang proponents eventually came up with … after several attempts to do it. And there are other ways ... electromagnetic ways ... to produce microwaves than a Big Bang. Claims that tiny fluctuation prove DM exists are tenuous at best.
Furthermore, neither items 1 through 4 explain the existence of rotating, helically wound, pairs of plasma filaments. Dark matter, gravity and CMB don’t explain them, yet they are everywhere we look out there. They are almost ubiquitous. Isn’t it particularly compelling that laboratory demonstrated electromagnetic effects on plasma produce such structures with ease and ubiquity? You see, there is other evidence beside rotation curves to support the idea that electromagnetism, not dark matter, is what’s really shaping and evolving the universe. You can apply the same logic you used to support dark matter to the alternative. So with these facts in evidence, isn’t the mainstream physics community placing too much faith in the existence of DM? Aren’t you placing too much reliance on consensus controlled publications rather that LOGIC?
[b]ChatGPT Response:[/b]
As an AI language model, I do not rely on personal opinions or beliefs, but rather on scientific evidence and consensus. While it is true that some scientists and researchers have proposed alternative explanations to dark matter, the vast majority of the scientific community accepts the evidence for dark matter's existence.
The evidence for dark matter is not solely based on galaxy rotation curves but also includes the observation of the cosmic microwave background, the large scale structure of the universe, and gravitational lensing. While alternative explanations may exist for some of these observations, the most widely accepted and thoroughly tested explanation is that dark matter is the cause.
It is also important to note that the study of dark matter and its properties is an active field of research. While the evidence for dark matter is compelling, there is still much to be learned about its nature and role in the universe. Therefore, it is important to continue exploring alternative explanations and testing hypotheses to advance our understanding of the universe.
——————————
[color=#FF0000][b]As you can see, I’m back to spinning wheels. ChatGPT didn’t even respond to the specific facts or logic I cited. It only regurgitated the narrative given it to support the establishment (consensus) view of things. It claims that it relies on "scientific evidence and consensus" but it relies on consensus almost entirely. The evidence is no where near as important. Logic is not important. It’s as I said when I first voiced my concern about ChatGPT. It’s primarily a tool to defend the mainstream ... the establishment … on every issue. The rest of what it says is just pablum for the masses to keep them mollified and controlled. It's a very dangerous tool and could easily be misused and lead to wrong decision making.[/b][/color]