Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Something Doesn't Seem Right

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Michael Levine on July 24, 2003 18:20:40 UTC

I haven't read the whole paper yet, but there seems to be something wrong with the premise. Please bear in mind that I'm no authority in physics so I might be missing something important. In any case, here are my comments:

As I understand it, if particles of dark matter exist they have the curious property of not exhibiting the three nuclear forces (EM, weak, strong) most commonly associated with matter. That is, as opposed to known particles, the gravity component is far stronger than the remaining three. Which is the reason we suppose they exist but cannot easily detect them, is that correct?

So if consciousness is "made" of dark matter, it would take an unbelievable amount of dark matter for our dark-matter-based minds to interact with our visible-matter-based brains, since all conscious actions coming from our brains toward our muscles must be the result of gravitational forces alone. As a physicist, you know the proportion between gravity and the other three forces better than I. All I know is that it's huge.

If I had to guess, I would say that what's missing in the physicists' calculations about the universe is perhaps not gravity, but electromagnetism. We already have plenty of evidence that EM surrounds us, in fact I don't think there's a place in the universe where some amount of EM cannot be measured. Given that "dark EM" has the power to explain the "missing matter" problem, that we have enough evidence that we are surrounded by it, and that we know for a fact that much of what goes on in the brain is the result of EM interactions, why should we resort to explaining consciousness in terms of something we don't even know exists?

So there you are. As I said, I'm no authority on the subject; take that as speculations of a bored layman.



Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins