100 réponses à ce sujet

[darth_lopez]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

Neutronium does not sound as cool as Element Zero or Eezo.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Neutronium

too bad the real eezo doesn't endow us with magic powers v.v

[Praetor Knight]

darth_lopez wrote...

Praetor Shepard wrote...

Neutronium does not sound as cool as Element Zero or Eezo.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Neutronium

too bad the real eezo doesn't endow us with magic powers v.v

yeah, they just cause cancer and irradiate you.

[darth_lopez]

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...


no, electrons are the exact opposites of protons (electrons = negatively charged... proton = positively charged... neutrons = neutral charge)... dude this is basic high school chemistry or 4th grade science.

"what is a atom, class?", 2nd Grade

anti-proton = not a "regular" proton (minus the weight), and isn't a electron either... 

"remember kids... ATOMS are not science fiction. In fact, you're made of ATOMS too.", 2nd Grade class Part 2

idk if this has been brought up yet. But Electrons are the Polar opposite of a proton. an Anti-Proton would be the exact opposite. Meaning collision with a Proton would cause total erradication of the 2 sub-atomic particles.

maybe you should learn what anti-matter is and how it's theorized to function with Real Matter
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Anti-Matter

An Anti-Proton is not just the Polar Opposite it is the Exact opposite. use the wiki link as a quick refrence.

[darth_lopez]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

darth_lopez wrote...

Praetor Shepard wrote...

Neutronium does not sound as cool as Element Zero or Eezo.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Neutronium

too bad the real eezo doesn't endow us with magic powers v.v

yeah, they just cause cancer and irradiate you.

sad...soo much potential..ah well...neutronium ice cream anyone? >.>

[Phaedon]

darth_lopez wrote...

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...


no, electrons are the exact opposites of protons (electrons = negatively charged... proton = positively charged... neutrons = neutral charge)... dude this is basic high school chemistry or 4th grade science.

"what is a atom, class?", 2nd Grade

anti-proton = not a "regular" proton (minus the weight), and isn't a electron either... 

"remember kids... ATOMS are not science fiction. In fact, you're made of ATOMS too.", 2nd Grade class Part 2

idk if this has been brought up yet. But Electrons are the Polar opposite of a proton. an Anti-Proton would be the exact opposite. Meaning collision with a Proton would cause total erradication of the 2 sub-atomic particles.

maybe you should learn what anti-matter is and how it's theorized to function with Real Matter
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Anti-Matter

An Anti-Proton is not just the Polar Opposite it is the Exact opposite. use the wiki link as a quick refrence.

Yup mentioned that already, but thanks for bringing it up again. 

[Phaedon]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Can someone explain Higgs bosons to me ? What wikipedia says makes no sense.

Bosons create fields that give mass to any object within them ?

Higgs bosons seem to be particles used as a part of the standard model of particle physics that help explain how other particles interact with each other through three known forces: strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions, but there is no known way to measure them or prove they exist.

Also relating to mass effect FTL travel and travel using mass relays, it seems that the alcubierre drive or metric can help explain how something can move at such speeds as described in the in-game codex, warping space-time in the process.



also it is possible that the mass relay could also create a traversable wormhole where again higgs bosons seem to be the key... with the goal of this research being to reach a theory of everything

edit: fixing grammar and adding links:)

Thanks again Praetor. I have heard of this drive before, but never looked into it.

Modifié par Phaedon, 25 octobre 2010 - 08:08 .

[FuturePasTimeCE]

darth_lopez wrote...

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...


no, electrons are the exact opposites of protons (electrons = negatively charged... proton = positively charged... neutrons = neutral charge)... dude this is basic high school chemistry or 4th grade science.

"what is a atom, class?", 2nd Grade

anti-proton = not a "regular" proton (minus the weight), and isn't a electron either... 

"remember kids... ATOMS are not science fiction. In fact, you're made of ATOMS too.", 2nd Grade class Part 2

idk if this has been brought up yet. But Electrons are the Polar opposite of a proton. an Anti-Proton would be the exact opposite. Meaning collision with a Proton would cause total erradication of the 2 sub-atomic particles.

maybe you should learn what anti-matter is and how it's theorized to function with Real Matter
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Anti-Matter

An Anti-Proton is not just the Polar Opposite it is the Exact opposite. use the wiki link as a quick refrence.

so you mean to tell me a anti-proton is a electron? Proton = +, Electron = - ... what's a Anti-proton's charge?

Modifié par FuturePasTimeCE, 26 octobre 2010 - 01:37 .

[FuturePasTimeCE]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Can someone explain Higgs bosons to me ? What wikipedia says makes no sense.

Bosons create fields that give mass to any object within them ?

Higgs bosons seem to be particles used as a part of the standard model of particle physics that help explain how other particles interact with each other through three known forces: strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions, but there is no known way to measure them or prove they exist.

Also relating to mass effect FTL travel and travel using mass relays, it seems that the alcubierre drive or metric can help explain how something can move at such speeds as described in the in-game codex, warping space-time in the process.



also it is possible that the mass relay could also create a traversable wormhole where again higgs bosons seem to be the key... with the goal of this research being to reach a theory of everything

edit: fixing grammar and adding links:)

imagine space as a sheet of paper... it has two sides and there could be multiple sheets of paper... matter/mass only bend and ball it. the other side of a piece of paper is probably called sub-space.

you see how the flat plane in that picture is above, it's stretched and animated on opposite sides... like the idea of mass/matter stretching inanimate space.

it looks like space being warped/stretched... that ripple could possibly propel something throw space depending how it's moving.

there's idea of hyperspace, and gravitywaves/warp speed/possibly like the picture above... waves of gravity folding/bending space... 

Modifié par FuturePasTimeCE, 26 octobre 2010 - 01:34 .

[darth_lopez]

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...

darth_lopez wrote...

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...


no, electrons are the exact opposites of protons (electrons = negatively charged... proton = positively charged... neutrons = neutral charge)... dude this is basic high school chemistry or 4th grade science.

"what is a atom, class?", 2nd Grade

anti-proton = not a "regular" proton (minus the weight), and isn't a electron either... 

"remember kids... ATOMS are not science fiction. In fact, you're made of ATOMS too.", 2nd Grade class Part 2

idk if this has been brought up yet. But Electrons are the Polar opposite of a proton. an Anti-Proton would be the exact opposite. Meaning collision with a Proton would cause total erradication of the 2 sub-atomic particles.

maybe you should learn what anti-matter is and how it's theorized to function with Real Matter
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Anti-Matter

An Anti-Proton is not just the Polar Opposite it is the Exact opposite. use the wiki link as a quick refrence.

so you mean to tell me a anti-proton is a electron? Proton = +, Electron = - ... what's a Anti-proton's charge?

Ok obviously your base knowledge of highschool physics/chem has failed you here, no offense simply

Firstly lets clear some definitions,

Polarity-  the particular state either positive or negative with reference to the two poles[..]
Anti- This prefix has many meanings, linguisticly speaking my forte i apologize, for this subject we are using it in the sense that it is counteracting substance, or nuetralizing agent if you will.

Now this part i cannot re-itarte enough:
No Anti-Protons are not Negative they are Anti-Protons. They are the Anti-Matter Equivelant of a Proton and Completely Erradicate the Proton causing, i'd assume at this level as well as the larger scale of a full atom, A sheerly Massive explosion dwarfing that of an Asteroid Impact, pending the size, From what i understand the Contact of Anti-matter with real matter could result in the planet being sheered in 2 halves.

In short if your Anti-Proton theory were correct Kaiden alenko, Biotics everywhere, and the Whole ME universe would have been totally anihillated millions of  times over.

Electrons are the POLAR opposite of a Proton.meaning only Their Charge is different, However, an Antiproton Is the exact opposite and as i've said thrice now will result in Total Annihilation of the subatomic particles and in theory a massive explosion The particles are not converted into energy as your highschool chem/physics knowledge would dictate, instead they no longer exist. The Two Contacting bits of matter are completely irradicated.  Similarly any Anti-Electrons( i think properly called a positron, not to be confused with Photon, Proton, or anyother particle entirely different) would also be irradicated when in contacting with real electrons
_-------
end re-iteration.

In short No an Anti-Proton is Not an electron it is in theory if i understand this right, bear with me it gets confusing, It has a Positive Charge it's just Negative Matter, that's not to say it's Negatively charged. Perhaps an example could better explain.

Imagine you are holding an orb of Water, no container just a floating orb of water, In one hand and in the other an orb of fire. let the Water Represent a normal Proton and the Fire represent an Anti Proton.  You combine the 2 Orbs and they cause a massive amount of steam and are instantly gone there is no longer any water or fire in your hands. This is the relationship between an AntiProton and a Proton they are EXACT Opposites.

the relation ship between a Normal Proton and electron is more akin to... say.....a Blue and Red Lense You can put the lenses ontop of eachother and make purple But you can still take the lenses off and see just blue and red again. Making them Polar Opposites as only the appearance changed slightly red is still red and blue is still blue just as an electron away from an atom is still -charge and a proton seperated from a nucleus(if at all possible i'm not a science major here but i know my theoretical physics well enough)  is still +charge

I hope that gives you somemthing tangible to work with and understand what i am saying when
i say again that an Antiproton is still +, just Negative Matter in space and an Electron is no where near similar to An Anti-Proton.


EDIT: i stand corrected it is negative charge however. it is still not an electron First Paragraph of the article you had linked

The antiproton (p, pronounced p-bar) is the antiparticle of the proton. Antiprotons are stable, but they are typically short-lived since any collision with a proton will cause both particles to be annihilated in a burst of energy.

Modifié par darth_lopez, 26 octobre 2010 - 02:28 .

[FuturePasTimeCE]

darth_lopez wrote...

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...

darth_lopez wrote...

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...


no, electrons are the exact opposites of protons (electrons = negatively charged... proton = positively charged... neutrons = neutral charge)... dude this is basic high school chemistry or 4th grade science.

"what is a atom, class?", 2nd Grade

anti-proton = not a "regular" proton (minus the weight), and isn't a electron either... 

"remember kids... ATOMS are not science fiction. In fact, you're made of ATOMS too.", 2nd Grade class Part 2

idk if this has been brought up yet. But Electrons are the Polar opposite of a proton. an Anti-Proton would be the exact opposite. Meaning collision with a Proton would cause total erradication of the 2 sub-atomic particles.

maybe you should learn what anti-matter is and how it's theorized to function with Real Matter
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Anti-Matter

An Anti-Proton is not just the Polar Opposite it is the Exact opposite. use the wiki link as a quick refrence.

so you mean to tell me a anti-proton is a electron? Proton = +, Electron = - ... what's a Anti-proton's charge?

Ok obviously your base knowledge of highschool physics/chem has failed you here, no offense simply

Firstly lets clear some definitions,

Polarity-  the particular state either positive or negative with reference to the two poles[..]
Anti- This prefix has many meanings, linguisticly speaking my forte i apologize, for this subject we are using it in the sense that it is counteracting substance, or nuetralizing agent if you will.

Now this part i cannot re-itarte enough:
No Anti-Protons are not Negative they are Anti-Protons. They are the Anti-Matter Equivelant of a Proton and Completely Erradicate the Proton causing, i'd assume at this level as well as the larger scale of a full atom, A sheerly Massive explosion dwarfing that of an Asteroid Impact, pending the size, From what i understand the Contact of Anti-matter with real matter could result in the planet being sheered in 2 halves.

In short if your Anti-Proton theory were correct Kaiden alenko, Biotics everywhere, and the Whole ME universe would have been totally anihillated millions of  times over.

Electrons are the POLAR opposite of a Proton.meaning only Their Charge is different, However, an Antiproton Is the exact opposite and as i've said thrice now will result in Total Annihilation of the subatomic particles and in theory a massive explosion The particles are not converted into energy as your highschool chem/physics knowledge would dictate, instead they no longer exist. The Two Contacting bits of matter are completely irradicated.  Similarly any Anti-Electrons( i think properly called a positron, not to be confused with Photon, Proton, or anyother particle entirely different) would also be irradicated when in contacting with real electrons
_-------
end re-iteration.

In short No an Anti-Proton is Not an electron it is in theory if i understand this right, bear with me it gets confusing, It has a Positive Charge it's just Negative Matter, that's not to say it's Negatively charged. Perhaps an example could better explain.

Imagine you are holding an orb of Water, no container just a floating orb of water, In one hand and in the other an orb of fire. let the Water Represent a normal Proton and the Fire represent an Anti Proton.  You combine the 2 Orbs and they cause a massive amount of steam and are instantly gone there is no longer any water or fire in your hands. This is the relationship between an AntiProton and a Proton they are EXACT Opposites.

the relation ship between a Normal Proton and electron is more akin to... say.....a Blue and Red Lense You can put the lenses ontop of eachother and make purple But you can still take the lenses off and see just blue and red again. Making them Polar Opposites as only the appearance changed slightly red is still red and blue is still blue just as an electron away from an atom is still -charge and a proton seperated from a nucleus(if at all possible i'm not a science major here but i know my theoretical physics well enough)  is still +charge

I hope that gives you somemthing tangible to work with and understand what i am saying when
i say again that an Antiproton is still +, just Negative Matter in space and an Electron is no where near similar to An Anti-Proton.


EDIT: i stand corrected it is negative charge however. it is still not an electron First Paragraph of the article you had linked

The antiproton (p, pronounced p-bar) is the antiparticle of the proton. Antiprotons are stable, but they are typically short-lived since any collision with a proton will cause both particles to be annihilated in a burst of energy.

i'll read the rest later... but i read a few lines to respond... 

i think my basic intelligence is smart enough to question why we call horoscopes, "astrology", and the science of space, "astronomy"... astro = stars/cosmology + ology = science/study of ... yet it's meaning is assigned to magical star signs... 

i

[darth_lopez]

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...

darth_lopez wrote...

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...

darth_lopez wrote...

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...


no, electrons are the exact opposites of protons (electrons = negatively charged... proton = positively charged... neutrons = neutral charge)... dude this is basic high school chemistry or 4th grade science.

"what is a atom, class?", 2nd Grade

anti-proton = not a "regular" proton (minus the weight), and isn't a electron either... 

"remember kids... ATOMS are not science fiction. In fact, you're made of ATOMS too.", 2nd Grade class Part 2

idk if this has been brought up yet. But Electrons are the Polar opposite of a proton. an Anti-Proton would be the exact opposite. Meaning collision with a Proton would cause total erradication of the 2 sub-atomic particles.

maybe you should learn what anti-matter is and how it's theorized to function with Real Matter
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Anti-Matter

An Anti-Proton is not just the Polar Opposite it is the Exact opposite. use the wiki link as a quick refrence.

so you mean to tell me a anti-proton is a electron? Proton = +, Electron = - ... what's a Anti-proton's charge?

Ok obviously your base knowledge of highschool physics/chem has failed you here, no offense simply

Firstly lets clear some definitions,

Polarity-  the particular state either positive or negative with reference to the two poles[..]
Anti- This prefix has many meanings, linguisticly speaking my forte i apologize, for this subject we are using it in the sense that it is counteracting substance, or nuetralizing agent if you will.

Now this part i cannot re-itarte enough:
No Anti-Protons are not Negative they are Anti-Protons. They are the Anti-Matter Equivelant of a Proton and Completely Erradicate the Proton causing, i'd assume at this level as well as the larger scale of a full atom, A sheerly Massive explosion dwarfing that of an Asteroid Impact, pending the size, From what i understand the Contact of Anti-matter with real matter could result in the planet being sheered in 2 halves.

In short if your Anti-Proton theory were correct Kaiden alenko, Biotics everywhere, and the Whole ME universe would have been totally anihillated millions of  times over.

Electrons are the POLAR opposite of a Proton.meaning only Their Charge is different, However, an Antiproton Is the exact opposite and as i've said thrice now will result in Total Annihilation of the subatomic particles and in theory a massive explosion The particles are not converted into energy as your highschool chem/physics knowledge would dictate, instead they no longer exist. The Two Contacting bits of matter are completely irradicated.  Similarly any Anti-Electrons( i think properly called a positron, not to be confused with Photon, Proton, or anyother particle entirely different) would also be irradicated when in contacting with real electrons
_-------
end re-iteration.

In short No an Anti-Proton is Not an electron it is in theory if i understand this right, bear with me it gets confusing, It has a Positive Charge it's just Negative Matter, that's not to say it's Negatively charged. Perhaps an example could better explain.

Imagine you are holding an orb of Water, no container just a floating orb of water, In one hand and in the other an orb of fire. let the Water Represent a normal Proton and the Fire represent an Anti Proton.  You combine the 2 Orbs and they cause a massive amount of steam and are instantly gone there is no longer any water or fire in your hands. This is the relationship between an AntiProton and a Proton they are EXACT Opposites.

the relation ship between a Normal Proton and electron is more akin to... say.....a Blue and Red Lense You can put the lenses ontop of eachother and make purple But you can still take the lenses off and see just blue and red again. Making them Polar Opposites as only the appearance changed slightly red is still red and blue is still blue just as an electron away from an atom is still -charge and a proton seperated from a nucleus(if at all possible i'm not a science major here but i know my theoretical physics well enough)  is still +charge

I hope that gives you somemthing tangible to work with and understand what i am saying when
i say again that an Antiproton is still +, just Negative Matter in space and an Electron is no where near similar to An Anti-Proton.


EDIT: i stand corrected it is negative charge however. it is still not an electron First Paragraph of the article you had linked

The antiproton (p, pronounced p-bar) is the antiparticle of the proton. Antiprotons are stable, but they are typically short-lived since any collision with a proton will cause both particles to be annihilated in a burst of energy.

i'll read the rest later... but i read a few lines to respond... 

i think my basic intelligence is smart enough to question why we call horoscopes, "astrology", and the science of space, "astronomy"... astro = stars/cosmology + ology = science/study of ... yet it's meaning is assigned to magical star signs... 

i

it's a good question but most people ask that about 4th grade when they find out that ology generally refers to the science or the study of something. so I'm not impressed. Furthermore intelligence and Smarts are entirely different I one can repeat the facts or words spewed from the mouths of others on a daily basis and be smart it takes problem solving skills and understanding to be intelligent along with the ability to admit past mistakes and learn from them, based off of your limited vocabulary or not *hint hint*.

[JamesStokes7]

I think the correct term for Element Zero is APPLIED PHLEBOTINUM (just look it up on TVTropes).

[MajFauxPas]

Phaedon wrote...

Can someone explain Higgs bosons to me ? What wikipedia says makes no sense.

Bosons create fields that give mass to any object within them ?

My limited understanding of quantum physics and relativity make for grievous headaches while browsing Wikipedia as well. But, I suppose I gleaned something finally: bosons are the stuff that things are made of. Himmelstoss. Ether.
Basically, the Higgs boson is to mass as the photon is to light.
http://en.wikipedia..../Standard_Model

Note in the second paragraph of the above article that the 'dark matter' particle has not yet been observed. The Higgs boson is hypothesized to be what makes up dark matter, and what would essentially be a 'matter' boson, and we should see some sign of it within the year, if it exists.

[MajFauxPas]

P.S. Please discontinue the Antimatter war or put it in an Antimatter thread. This is an Eezo thread. Completely different.

Modifié par MajFauxPas, 27 octobre 2010 - 07:53 .

[darth_lopez]

MajFauxPas wrote...

P.S. Please discontinue the Antimatter war or put it in an Antimatter thread. This is an Eezo thread. Completely different.

There isn't anything to continue of it. AntiMatter is not Eezo. so it's not made of Antiprotons Positrons and AntiNuetrons pretty simple.

in fact i'm pretty sure we all reach the conclusion the most likely composition for eezo was 0 protons and 0 electrons. Theres always the possibility it has 0 protons and thousands of electrons but we'll never know unless BW posts it's exact composition is not given and so we must assume it's nuetronium - cancer + superpowers and in somecases insta death due to exposure.

[Phaedon]

MajFauxPas wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Can someone explain Higgs bosons to me ? What wikipedia says makes no sense.

Bosons create fields that give mass to any object within them ?

My limited understanding of quantum physics and relativity make for grievous headaches while browsing Wikipedia as well. But, I suppose I gleaned something finally: bosons are the stuff that things are made of. Himmelstoss. Ether.
Basically, the Higgs boson is to mass as the photon is to light.
http://en.wikipedia..../Standard_Model

Note in the second paragraph of the above article that the 'dark matter' particle has not yet been observed. The Higgs boson is hypothesized to be what makes up dark matter, and what would essentially be a 'matter' boson, and we should see some sign of it within the year, if it exists.

Ether exists ? Damn, I guess that Einstein was partially wrong about light and waves.
Oh and please don't let this thread die, it's an interesting science discussion thread.

[darth_lopez]

Phaedon wrote...

MajFauxPas wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Can someone explain Higgs bosons to me ? What wikipedia says makes no sense.

Bosons create fields that give mass to any object within them ?

My limited understanding of quantum physics and relativity make for grievous headaches while browsing Wikipedia as well. But, I suppose I gleaned something finally: bosons are the stuff that things are made of. Himmelstoss. Ether.
Basically, the Higgs boson is to mass as the photon is to light.
http://en.wikipedia..../Standard_Model

Note in the second paragraph of the above article that the 'dark matter' particle has not yet been observed. The Higgs boson is hypothesized to be what makes up dark matter, and what would essentially be a 'matter' boson, and we should see some sign of it within the year, if it exists.

Ether exists ? Damn, I guess that Einstein was partially wrong about light and waves.
Oh and please don't let this thread die, it's an interesting science discussion thread.

I thought Ether was non-existant? Didn't it throw off mathematical calculations pre-enstein? whoa now i'm confused @.@

[Praetor Knight]

darth_lopez wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

MajFauxPas wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Can someone explain Higgs bosons to me ? What wikipedia says makes no sense.

Bosons create fields that give mass to any object within them ?

My limited understanding of quantum physics and relativity make for grievous headaches while browsing Wikipedia as well. But, I suppose I gleaned something finally: bosons are the stuff that things are made of. Himmelstoss. Ether.
Basically, the Higgs boson is to mass as the photon is to light.
http://en.wikipedia..../Standard_Model

Note in the second paragraph of the above article that the 'dark matter' particle has not yet been observed. The Higgs boson is hypothesized to be what makes up dark matter, and what would essentially be a 'matter' boson, and we should see some sign of it within the year, if it exists.

Ether exists ? Damn, I guess that Einstein was partially wrong about light and waves.
Oh and please don't let this thread die, it's an interesting science discussion thread.

I thought Ether was non-existant? Didn't it throw off mathematical calculations pre-enstein? whoa now i'm confused @.@

The comparison seems to be between higgs bosons and ether, the only lacking element is for another important experiement and another Einstien to disprove the existence of higgs boson to make the comparison complete.

But no idea what Himmelstoss has to do with this.

Here is something relating to the end of ether in science unti the term was reused for a class of chemical compounds.

In 1887, a crucial experiment was performed by Michelson and
Edward Morley in an attempt to detect the existence of the ether. The
experiment, named the Michelson-Morley experiment in honor of its authors,
shocked the scientific community by yielding results which implied the
non-existence of ether. This result was later on used by Einstein to refute the
existence of the ether and allowed him to develop special relativity without
this artificial (and non-existent) constraint.

Edit: adding quote source and not liking posting mechanics... quote from: http://scienceworld....sics/Ether.html

Modifié par Praetor Shepard, 30 octobre 2010 - 12:36 .

[darth_lopez]

Where did Himmelstoss come from XD

[MajFauxPas]

"Ether" was once thought to be the medium in which the stars were suspended. The stuff that dreams are literally made of. Not necessarily the chemical we know as ether, but some wispy, vaporous element, perhaps which was associated with sleeping, dreaming, night time, stars, planets, and the moon. Of course this theory did not survive into the twentieth century.

"Dark matter" is a somewhat fitting analogy to the old theory of ether. The stuff that makes up the cosmos.

Himmelstoss is turning up names in Google, I think I meant Himmelstoff, sorry.

Modifié par MajFauxPas, 30 octobre 2010 - 04:47 .

[hong]

Eezo is probably non-baryonic matter, so wouldn't have any protons or neutrons. It wouldn't beable to do all its funky magic if it was ordinary mundane matter.

[Oblarg]

MajFauxPas wrote...

"Ether" was once thought to be the medium in which the stars were suspended. The stuff that dreams are literally made of. Not necessarily the chemical we know as ether, but some wispy, vaporous element, perhaps which was associated with sleeping, dreaming, night time, stars, planets, and the moon. Of course this theory did not survive into the twentieth century.

"Dark matter" is a somewhat fitting analogy to the old theory of ether. The stuff that makes up the cosmos.

Himmelstoss is turning up names in Google, I think I meant Himmelstoff, sorry.

Dark matter and ether are more or less completely unrelated in everything except that we can't directly see or interact with them.

Dark matter is an explanation for gravitational effects we see on the rotation of galaxies.

Ether was a explanation offered before relativity for why C is constant regardless of your reference frame.

[Christmas Ape]

'Ether' of pre-scientific theories was also the medium through which light was supposed to travel, hence the slightly more technical name of 'luminous ether'.

[Oblarg]

Christmas Ape wrote...

'Ether' of pre-scientific theories was also the medium through which light was supposed to travel, hence the slightly more technical name of 'luminous ether'.

Yep.  The reason for the medium was to explain the phenomenon which is now explained (correctly) by relativity, so it's a pretty obsolete (and, also, completely debunked) model.

[Christmas Ape]

Oblarg wrote...

Christmas Ape wrote...
'Ether' of pre-scientific theories was also the medium through which light was supposed to travel, hence the slightly more technical name of 'luminous ether'.

Yep.  The reason for the medium was to explain the phenomenon which is now explained (correctly) by relativity, so it's a pretty obsolete (and, also, completely debunked) model.

Oh, no question - though that's true of most theories you can describe as "pre-scientific".