About the dark matter reactor I just rationalized that they use it to create the exotic matter their ftl needs on demand as storing exotic matter is too dangerous due to its volatile nature.
About the dark matter reactor I just rationalized that they use it to create the exotic matter their ftl needs on demand as storing exotic matter is too dangerous due to its volatile nature.
The problem with this reasoning is that there is no such thing as dark matter.
Dark matter is simply an artifact of gravity interaction equation - a number in this equation that was inserted to make this equation to correctly describe observable Universe.
It is more reasonable to assume that our theory of gravity and equation describing it is wrong.
Actually, just few days ago I've read an article from a British physicist who explained both EM engine and our observations on galaxies by the fact that inertia is quantum in nature - I'm not good with quantum field theory I can't give more details (
That is an example of what may account for "dark matter".
Another theory is that dark matter are primordial black holes - small ones - Earth-sized ones. Can't make engine with that either.
If dark matter is indeed some unknown particles that we have not found I'm sure we will give them some name when we find them: wimps for example (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) - that's how they are called now.
PS. Oh yes, and dark matter has positive energy. For warp bubble we need negative one.
About the dark matter reactor I just rationalized that they use it to create the exotic matter their ftl needs on demand as storing exotic matter is too dangerous due to its volatile nature.
The problem with this reasoning is that there is no such thing as dark matter.
Dark matter is simply an artifact of gravity interaction equation - a number in this equation that was inserted to make this equation to correctly describe observable Universe.
It is more reasonable to assume that our theory of gravity and equation describing it is wrong.
Actually, just few days ago I've read an article from a British physicist who explained both EM engine and our observations on galaxies by the fact that inertia is quantum in nature - I'm not good with quantum field theory I can't give more details (
That is an example of what may account for "dark matter".
Another theory is that dark matter are primordial black holes - small ones - Earth-sized ones. Can't make engine with that either.
If dark matter is indeed some unknown particles that we have not found I'm sure we will give them some name when we find them: wimps for example (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) - that's how they are called now.
PS. Oh yes, and dark matter has positive energy. For warp bubble we need negative one.
There is no proof that Dark Matter does or doesn't exist. Even if some theory comes out that removes the need for Dark Matter, it doesn't disprove the existence of Dark Matter. Dark Matter is just some type of theoretical matter that doesn't interact with the electromagnetic spectrum and produces a gravitational force. It could have positive energy or negative energy. Until we have some Dark Matter to play around with in a lab, then there is no way to know if it will be useful for energy production.
About the dark matter reactor I just rationalized that they use it to create the exotic matter their ftl needs on demand as storing exotic matter is too dangerous due to its volatile nature.
The problem with this reasoning is that there is no such thing as dark matter.
Dark matter is simply an artifact of gravity interaction equation - a number in this equation that was inserted to make this equation to correctly describe observable Universe.
It is more reasonable to assume that our theory of gravity and equation describing it is wrong.
Actually, just few days ago I've read an article from a British physicist who explained both EM engine and our observations on galaxies by the fact that inertia is quantum in nature - I'm not good with quantum field theory I can't give more details (
That is an example of what may account for "dark matter".
Another theory is that dark matter are primordial black holes - small ones - Earth-sized ones. Can't make engine with that either.
If dark matter is indeed some unknown particles that we have not found I'm sure we will give them some name when we find them: wimps for example (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) - that's how they are called now.
PS. Oh yes, and dark matter has positive energy. For warp bubble we need negative one.
There is no proof that Dark Matter does or doesn't exist. Even if some theory comes out that removes the need for Dark Matter, it doesn't disprove the existence of Dark Matter. Dark Matter is just some type of theoretical matter that doesn't interact with the electromagnetic spectrum and produces a gravitational force. It could have positive energy or negative energy. Until we have some Dark Matter to play around with in a lab, then there is no way to know if it will be useful for energy production.
It is impossible to completely disprove the existance of a physical object, as the universe is likely infinite (or expanding faster than we could move towards the edge) . You never know.
EDIT: I could say there is a nebula that is made of strawberry jell-o that speaks fluent french and not one of you could prove me wrong.
OK I GET THE POINT, STOP MAKING ME LOOK LIKE AN MORON.
*cries in corner*
You're not a moron, @phantomfinch! You've just had no reason to know or even think about this stuff before now. Some of us have, like @EvilSmoo, have jobs where we've worked with things you haven't, or have had training or schooling that covered fields you haven't. Nobody's born knowing this stuff, and I'd say 90% of people - easily 90% - never even think of these things, let alone follow up on it. You, though, now know more than all of those folks. Are you ever going to need this stuff? Eh...probably not. But that's true of a lot of knowledge. You pack it away in the chance that one day it'll be useful.
The game is more like cartoon science to reduce complexity and keeping fun for kids and casual players.
The tech tree started over simplified and is unfinished. It's getting refined towards end of release.
The science is sharper than I think you're giving it credit for being. Much of the game hangs together quite nicely from a scientific perspective, with necessary artistic license taken to skirt currently-impossible or unstudied subjects. But even if the science is a total whiff, does that really matter if someone wants to have a scientific discussion on the matter? No; of course not. Hell, Star Trek built an empire on babbling BS for years, and yet people keep coming up with the actual science to help explain core concepts that the writers and creator just gloss over. It's also why we have tech today that so strongly mimics what has appeared in sci-fi gone by; someone figured out the reality behind the sci-fi, and ultimately was able to knock "fiction" off because it just became "science."
So what if it's "only a game?" Doesn't mean we can't learn something along the way, maybe open lines of inquiry. Everybody learns best when they're being entertained at the same time.
Tl;dr: People ask questions to learn. You don't have to answer, but don't decry them for asking.
Damn, dude. You and @EvilSmoo are intelligent. I'm in high-school Chemistry right now (currently a senior) and it's nowhere near the level of science you're describing for Ion Crystals and Subnautica's own science within itself. I want to be a quantum physicist someday, that just gave me some more motivation to work harder to become such!
About the dark matter reactor I just rationalized that they use it to create the exotic matter their ftl needs on demand as storing exotic matter is too dangerous due to its volatile nature.
The problem with this reasoning is that there is no such thing as dark matter.
Dark matter is simply an artifact of gravity interaction equation - a number in this equation that was inserted to make this equation to correctly describe observable Universe.
It is more reasonable to assume that our theory of gravity and equation describing it is wrong.
Actually, just few days ago I've read an article from a British physicist who explained both EM engine and our observations on galaxies by the fact that inertia is quantum in nature - I'm not good with quantum field theory I can't give more details (
That is an example of what may account for "dark matter".
Another theory is that dark matter are primordial black holes - small ones - Earth-sized ones. Can't make engine with that either.
If dark matter is indeed some unknown particles that we have not found I'm sure we will give them some name when we find them: wimps for example (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) - that's how they are called now.
PS. Oh yes, and dark matter has positive energy. For warp bubble we need negative one.
There is no proof that Dark Matter does or doesn't exist. Even if some theory comes out that removes the need for Dark Matter, it doesn't disprove the existence of Dark Matter. Dark Matter is just some type of theoretical matter that doesn't interact with the electromagnetic spectrum and produces a gravitational force. It could have positive energy or negative energy. Until we have some Dark Matter to play around with in a lab, then there is no way to know if it will be useful for energy production.
Dark Matter by definition is the stuff with positive energy
About the dark matter reactor I just rationalized that they use it to create the exotic matter their ftl needs on demand as storing exotic matter is too dangerous due to its volatile nature.
The problem with this reasoning is that there is no such thing as dark matter.
Dark matter is simply an artifact of gravity interaction equation - a number in this equation that was inserted to make this equation to correctly describe observable Universe.
It is more reasonable to assume that our theory of gravity and equation describing it is wrong.
Actually, just few days ago I've read an article from a British physicist who explained both EM engine and our observations on galaxies by the fact that inertia is quantum in nature - I'm not good with quantum field theory I can't give more details (
That is an example of what may account for "dark matter".
Another theory is that dark matter are primordial black holes - small ones - Earth-sized ones. Can't make engine with that either.
If dark matter is indeed some unknown particles that we have not found I'm sure we will give them some name when we find them: wimps for example (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) - that's how they are called now.
PS. Oh yes, and dark matter has positive energy. For warp bubble we need negative one.
There is no proof that Dark Matter does or doesn't exist. Even if some theory comes out that removes the need for Dark Matter, it doesn't disprove the existence of Dark Matter. Dark Matter is just some type of theoretical matter that doesn't interact with the electromagnetic spectrum and produces a gravitational force. It could have positive energy or negative energy. Until we have some Dark Matter to play around with in a lab, then there is no way to know if it will be useful for energy production.
Dark Matter by definition is the stuff with positive energy
What definition? All that defines Dark Matter is that it is a theoretical concept to explain certain phenomena without violating General Relativity, doesn't interact with the electromagnetic spectrum, and it produces a gravitational field. Positive mass attracts positive mass while theoretically, negative mass is supposed to repel positive mass. So Dark Matter could have positive mass and negative energy.
If some other theory removes the need for Dark Matter and we find something that doesn't interact with the electromagnetic spectrum and produces a gravitational field, then Dark Matter could be positive mass and positive energy, positive mass and negative energy, negative mass and positive energy, or negative mass and negative energy depending on if it attracts or repels positive matter.
Dark Matter could have positive mass and negative energy.
It can't.
Positive mass and positive energy are the same things.
Negative energy and negative mass are the same thing.
Negative mass is not negative energy just like mass and energy are not the same thing. We might be able to convert negative mass into negative energy just like we can convert mass into energy, but that is assuming that negative mass and negative energy behave similar to mass and energy. Negative mass is a theoretical concept while negative energy is used in gravitational energy and quantum fields. Until we find Dark Matter, then we won't know what properties it has beside not interacting with the electromagnetic spectrum and produces a gravitational field.
Dark Matter could have positive mass and negative energy.
It can't.
Positive mass and positive energy are the same things.
Negative energy and negative mass are the same thing.
Negative mass is not negative energy just like mass and energy are not the same thing. We might be able to convert negative mass into negative energy just like we can convert mass into energy, but that is assuming that negative mass and negative energy behave similar to mass and energy. Negative mass is a theoretical concept while negative energy is used in gravitational energy and quantum fields. Until we find Dark Matter, then we won't know what properties it has beside not interacting with the electromagnetic spectrum and produces a gravitational field.
It is impossible to completely disprove the existance of a physical object, as the universe is likely infinite (or expanding faster than we could move towards the edge) . You never know.
EDIT: I could say there is a nebula that is made of strawberry jell-o that speaks fluent french and not one of you could prove me wrong.
Sure, you could, but you can say anything. The problem is that just because you say something doesn't mean it has any scientific validity.
A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observed phenomena. The Earth orbiting the Sun was a hypothesis to explain the movement of the Sun and other stars in the sky. All life needing air was a hypothesis to explain why an open flask of broth spoils while a sealed one doesn't. Hypotheses are then tested. Results are published, and other researchers attempt to duplicate the experiment and results by running it themselves.
When a hypothesis based on several discrete elements of evidence (as opposed to a single, non-repeatable result), consistent with experimental results, and is shown to make accurate predictions when an error in predictions could be proven (thus proving the prediction false) - when it does all that, then it can be advanced to theory. Theories have been rigorously tested, results repeated time and again, and remain the best explanation for a phenomena when subjected to scientific inquiry. Theories are predictions that have been proven accurate and never proven inaccurate by scientific standard - that is, a contrary evidence set that is reproducible. The Earth orbiting the sun was advanced to theory because the evidence bore it out repeatedly. Abiogenesis - the all life needing air thing - failed the test because evidence showed its predictions were incorrect (courtesy of M. Pasteur..and then many, many others, including high school students today).
There's another classification, Law, which science doesn't use anymore. Why? Because our understanding of the Universe is constantly being refined. A perfectly reasonable theory to Aristotle is absolute BS to us today for any number of reasons - we understand genetics, or data gathered by means inaccessible to an ancient Greek, for example. As a result, to say something is Law, that it is unassailably true for ever and ever...science just doesn't buy that kind of ego anymore. Science shouldn't have ego - If you don't make mistakes, you're doing it wrong; If you don't correct those mistakes, you're doing it really wrong; If you can't accept you're mistaken, you're not doing it at all.
So the French Jello Nebula...
We've never observed anything that could be explained by that.
There are no phenomena that suggest it.
Ergo, the French Jello Nebula isn't even a hypothesis; it's what's known as a WAG - Wild-Assed Guess. Something not rooted in any reality, just thrown out there for the sake of throwing something.
Dark Matter could have positive mass and negative energy.
It can't.
Positive mass and positive energy are the same things.
Negative energy and negative mass are the same thing.
Negative mass is not negative energy just like mass and energy are not the same thing. We might be able to convert negative mass into negative energy just like we can convert mass into energy, but that is assuming that negative mass and negative energy behave similar to mass and energy. Negative mass is a theoretical concept while negative energy is used in gravitational energy and quantum fields. Until we find Dark Matter, then we won't know what properties it has beside not interacting with the electromagnetic spectrum and produces a gravitational field.
Still doesn't prove if Dark Matter has positive or negative energy considering that it is a theoretical concept. For all we know, it doesn't have positive or negative energy, but complex or imaginary energy.
Subnautica using Dark Matter Reactors likely has to deal with the Dark Matter Engine in Futurama. At least it is better than using Unobtanium as a fuel source.
Still doesn't prove if Dark Matter has positive or negative energy considering that it is a theoretical concept. For all we know, it doesn't have positive or negative energy, but complex or imaginary energy.
Yeah, it kinda does, sorry to say. Dark matter is used to explain the gravitational interactions of stellar bodies in a way that doesn't violate General Relativity. Consequently, it has to exert a normal gravitational influence (i.e. positive per unit mass). While it isn't believed to have an electromagnetic force (wouldn't be dark, then), its existence is inferred from gravitational effect, a positive gravitational effect. Ergo, theoretical dark matter, used to balance the equation in line with General Relativity, is positive.
Mass and energy aren't the same thing, you're right, but they are interchangeable, a la E=mc^2. But the key thing to take away from that is that the signs don't - and can't - just spontaneously flip. If you have positive mass, it has to yield positive energy, and vice versa. To go from positive mass to negative energy would require a sign flip, and that just can't happen in the equation (even a "negative c," if such a thing could exist, wouldn't work; the square of a negative number is positive). The only way to get a negative energy value is from a negative mass value, and the only way to get a negative mass value is from a negative energy value. No substitutions, exchanges, or refunds allowed.
Still doesn't prove if Dark Matter has positive or negative energy considering that it is a theoretical concept. For all we know, it doesn't have positive or negative energy, but complex or imaginary energy.
Yeah, it kinda does, sorry to say. Dark matter is used to explain the gravitational interactions of stellar bodies in a way that doesn't violate General Relativity. Consequently, it has to exert a normal gravitational influence (i.e. positive per unit mass). While it isn't believed to have an electromagnetic force (wouldn't be dark, then), its existence is inferred from gravitational effect, a positive gravitational effect. Ergo, theoretical dark matter, used to balance the equation in line with General Relativity, is positive.
Mass and energy aren't the same thing, you're right, but they are interchangeable, a la E=mc^2. But the key thing to take away from that is that the signs don't - and can't - just spontaneously flip. If you have positive mass, it has to yield positive energy, and vice versa. To go from positive mass to negative energy would require a sign flip, and that just can't happen in the equation (even a "negative c," if such a thing could exist, wouldn't work; the square of a negative number is positive). The only way to get a negative energy value is from a negative mass value, and the only way to get a negative mass value is from a negative energy value. No substitutions, exchanges, or refunds allowed.
Science evolves over time. Some people treat science like religious dogma where refuting certain theories is blasphemy. While science is about survival of the fittest. That is why scientists have to be willing to keep an open mind and accept evidence that disproves their beloved theories. Some theories get discarded due to observations, some theories only work in certain circumstances (Classical Mechanics doesn't apply to relativistic velocities), and some theories evolve.
In a few decades or centuries, some brilliant physicist might come up with a theory that disproves E=mc^2 or at least make it work in only certain situations. After all, it seems to be a bit too simple to work in all situations or explain the complexities of matter and energy. Limiting matter and energy to simple equations and having just negative and positive versions seems like it is just scratching the surface of what matter and energy truly is.
Dark Matter could have positive mass and negative energy.
It can't.
Positive mass and positive energy are the same things.
Negative energy and negative mass are the same thing.
Negative mass is not negative energy just like mass and energy are not the same thing. We might be able to convert negative mass into negative energy just like we can convert mass into energy, but that is assuming that negative mass and negative energy behave similar to mass and energy. Negative mass is a theoretical concept while negative energy is used in gravitational energy and quantum fields. Until we find Dark Matter, then we won't know what properties it has beside not interacting with the electromagnetic spectrum and produces a gravitational field.
From the point of view we are talking about energy and mass are the same thing.
We have never observed negative mass-energy. In fact, it is likely that stuff with negative energy state can not exist at all because it would mean that stuff with lower energy state than zero can exist so vacuum can spontaneously decay into that stuff. Some scientists had found workaround over this problem this problem but its waaaay above my level of expertise to understand their theory.
kingkumacancels Work: distracted by Dwarf FortressJoin Date: 2015-09-25Member: 208137Members
edited March 2017
We've never observed anything that could be explained by that.
There are no phenomena that suggest it.
Ergo, the French Jello Nebula isn't even a hypothesis; it's what's known as a WAG - Wild-Assed Guess. Something not rooted in any reality, just thrown out there for the sake of throwing something.
And that, dear friends, that just isn't science.
I never said it was real; it was supposed to be so ridiculous that it is not rooted in reality. It was an example on how it impossible to completely disprove the existence of something. I didn't mean it literally.
We've never observed anything that could be explained by that.
There are no phenomena that suggest it.
Ergo, the French Jello Nebula isn't even a hypothesis; it's what's known as a WAG - Wild-Assed Guess. Something not rooted in any reality, just thrown out there for the sake of throwing something.
And that, dear friends, that just isn't science.
I never said it was real; it was supposed to be so ridiculous that it is not rooted in reality. It was an example on how it impossible to completely disprove the existence of something. I didn't mean it literally.
I can disprove it, simply by merit of the fact that jello cannot speak. There simply isn't any structure you can build from nothing but jello that is capable of thought or speech. So while there might be a french nebula, and there might be a nebula made out of jello, they aren't the same one. There could even be a french nebula made of something that looks, feels, and tastes like jello, but it would have to have a different chemical makeup.
We've never observed anything that could be explained by that.
There are no phenomena that suggest it.
Ergo, the French Jello Nebula isn't even a hypothesis; it's what's known as a WAG - Wild-Assed Guess. Something not rooted in any reality, just thrown out there for the sake of throwing something.
And that, dear friends, that just isn't science.
I never said it was real; it was supposed to be so ridiculous that it is not rooted in reality. It was an example on how it impossible to completely disprove the existence of something. I didn't mean it literally.
I can disprove it, simply by merit of the fact that jello cannot speak. There simply isn't any structure you can build from nothing but jello that is capable of thought or speech. So while there might be a french nebula, and there might be a nebula made out of jello, they aren't the same one. There could even be a french nebula made of something that looks, feels, and tastes like jello, but it would have to have a different chemical makeup.
That's STILL not proof. Have you searched the entire known universe yet? No, no you have not.
I believe at some point, even with Scientists, Common Sense kicks in and disqualifies Jell-o as being used in any quantitative discussion as a meaningful example.
We've never observed anything that could be explained by that.
There are no phenomena that suggest it.
Ergo, the French Jello Nebula isn't even a hypothesis; it's what's known as a WAG - Wild-Assed Guess. Something not rooted in any reality, just thrown out there for the sake of throwing something.
And that, dear friends, that just isn't science.
I never said it was real; it was supposed to be so ridiculous that it is not rooted in reality. It was an example on how it impossible to completely disprove the existence of something. I didn't mean it literally.
I can disprove it, simply by merit of the fact that jello cannot speak. There simply isn't any structure you can build from nothing but jello that is capable of thought or speech. So while there might be a french nebula, and there might be a nebula made out of jello, they aren't the same one. There could even be a french nebula made of something that looks, feels, and tastes like jello, but it would have to have a different chemical makeup.
That's STILL not proof. Have you searched the entire known universe yet? No, no you have not.
But I don't need to search the whole universe, because you have provided two known quantities: Jello and the ability to speak french. Those are both things that I know enough about to know that nowhere in the universe is jello able to speak french. If it can speak french, it is not jello. If it is jello, it can't speak french.
The whole point of science is to be able to say what will or won't and can and can't happen without having to search everywhere in the universe to make sure. For instance, I know that the center of the earth does not actually have dinosaurs in it, even though no one has been there. I and anyone else who knows the first thing about geology know this because we have observed the processes at the surface of the earth and deduced from them what exists deeper down, and from that we know for certain that it is not dinosaurs.
We've never observed anything that could be explained by that.
There are no phenomena that suggest it.
Ergo, the French Jello Nebula isn't even a hypothesis; it's what's known as a WAG - Wild-Assed Guess. Something not rooted in any reality, just thrown out there for the sake of throwing something.
And that, dear friends, that just isn't science.
I never said it was real; it was supposed to be so ridiculous that it is not rooted in reality. It was an example on how it impossible to completely disprove the existence of something. I didn't mean it literally.
I can disprove it, simply by merit of the fact that jello cannot speak. There simply isn't any structure you can build from nothing but jello that is capable of thought or speech. So while there might be a french nebula, and there might be a nebula made out of jello, they aren't the same one. There could even be a french nebula made of something that looks, feels, and tastes like jello, but it would have to have a different chemical makeup.
That's STILL not proof. Have you searched the entire known universe yet? No, no you have not.
But I don't need to search the whole universe, because you have provided two known quantities: Jello and the ability to speak french. Those are both things that I know enough about to know that nowhere in the universe is jello able to speak french. If it can speak french, it is not jello. If it is jello, it can't speak french.
The whole point of science is to be able to say what will or won't and can and can't happen without having to search everywhere in the universe to make sure. For instance, I know that the center of the earth does not actually have dinosaurs in it, even though no one has been there. I and anyone else who knows the first thing about geology know this because we have observed the processes at the surface of the earth and deduced from them what exists deeper down, and from that we know for certain that it is not dinosaurs.
It was an example. I am not claiming that there is such a thing as a French Jell-O nebula, it was an example about how the existence of anything cannot be completely disproven. I repeat, I am NOT SAYING IT DOES EXIST. I wanted a ludicrous example to get my point across, and a "French Jell-O nebula" was the first thing that came into my head.
I'd say starting with the best harder sci-fi authors. They introduce "it just works, okay" stuff for shields and star drives, but whenever possible, stick with believable orbital mechanics.
Like, floating chunks of rock like in the Avatar movie is silly, and requires made-up elements and/or bio-magic. And made-up elements nearly always results in humans trying to game systems to get infinite power or invincibility or immortality, or other fun stuff. Or wondering why the humans in the movie don't try.
But Larry Nivens Integral Trees requires a simple gas torus around a neutron star. I haven't run the math, but it requires a lot less suspension of disbelief for me. And trilateral symmetry makes a lot of sense in true zero-gee evolution.
Comments
A reasonable conclusion.
Dark matter is simply an artifact of gravity interaction equation - a number in this equation that was inserted to make this equation to correctly describe observable Universe.
It is more reasonable to assume that our theory of gravity and equation describing it is wrong.
Actually, just few days ago I've read an article from a British physicist who explained both EM engine and our observations on galaxies by the fact that inertia is quantum in nature - I'm not good with quantum field theory I can't give more details (
That is an example of what may account for "dark matter".
Another theory is that dark matter are primordial black holes - small ones - Earth-sized ones. Can't make engine with that either.
If dark matter is indeed some unknown particles that we have not found I'm sure we will give them some name when we find them: wimps for example (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) - that's how they are called now.
PS. Oh yes, and dark matter has positive energy. For warp bubble we need negative one.
There is no proof that Dark Matter does or doesn't exist. Even if some theory comes out that removes the need for Dark Matter, it doesn't disprove the existence of Dark Matter. Dark Matter is just some type of theoretical matter that doesn't interact with the electromagnetic spectrum and produces a gravitational force. It could have positive energy or negative energy. Until we have some Dark Matter to play around with in a lab, then there is no way to know if it will be useful for energy production.
It is impossible to completely disprove the existance of a physical object, as the universe is likely infinite (or expanding faster than we could move towards the edge) . You never know.
EDIT: I could say there is a nebula that is made of strawberry jell-o that speaks fluent french and not one of you could prove me wrong.
You think you have the weirdest anime gif? You are wrong.
Damn, dude. You and @EvilSmoo are intelligent. I'm in high-school Chemistry right now (currently a senior) and it's nowhere near the level of science you're describing for Ion Crystals and Subnautica's own science within itself. I want to be a quantum physicist someday, that just gave me some more motivation to work harder to become such!
It's name is, La' Quack. Hoo hoo.
That's great; go for it! As long as there are people willing to ask questions and look for correct and complete answers, humans have a future.
Dark Matter by definition is the stuff with positive energy
True, but I wouldn't have to prove you wrong, just prove you to not be credible. Lack of sources/evidence and all that.
I'm still not proven wrong though even if you did. No one has to believe it for it to be true.
What definition? All that defines Dark Matter is that it is a theoretical concept to explain certain phenomena without violating General Relativity, doesn't interact with the electromagnetic spectrum, and it produces a gravitational field. Positive mass attracts positive mass while theoretically, negative mass is supposed to repel positive mass. So Dark Matter could have positive mass and negative energy.
If some other theory removes the need for Dark Matter and we find something that doesn't interact with the electromagnetic spectrum and produces a gravitational field, then Dark Matter could be positive mass and positive energy, positive mass and negative energy, negative mass and positive energy, or negative mass and negative energy depending on if it attracts or repels positive matter.
You sound like our new President with that ideology.
Positive mass and positive energy are the same things.
Negative energy and negative mass are the same thing.
Negative mass is not negative energy just like mass and energy are not the same thing. We might be able to convert negative mass into negative energy just like we can convert mass into energy, but that is assuming that negative mass and negative energy behave similar to mass and energy. Negative mass is a theoretical concept while negative energy is used in gravitational energy and quantum fields. Until we find Dark Matter, then we won't know what properties it has beside not interacting with the electromagnetic spectrum and produces a gravitational field.
Here, this is a decent enough explanation for basic work
science20.com/quantum_gravity/blog/difference_between_matter_antimatter_dark_matter_and_negative_matter
Sure, you could, but you can say anything. The problem is that just because you say something doesn't mean it has any scientific validity.
A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observed phenomena. The Earth orbiting the Sun was a hypothesis to explain the movement of the Sun and other stars in the sky. All life needing air was a hypothesis to explain why an open flask of broth spoils while a sealed one doesn't. Hypotheses are then tested. Results are published, and other researchers attempt to duplicate the experiment and results by running it themselves.
When a hypothesis based on several discrete elements of evidence (as opposed to a single, non-repeatable result), consistent with experimental results, and is shown to make accurate predictions when an error in predictions could be proven (thus proving the prediction false) - when it does all that, then it can be advanced to theory. Theories have been rigorously tested, results repeated time and again, and remain the best explanation for a phenomena when subjected to scientific inquiry. Theories are predictions that have been proven accurate and never proven inaccurate by scientific standard - that is, a contrary evidence set that is reproducible. The Earth orbiting the sun was advanced to theory because the evidence bore it out repeatedly. Abiogenesis - the all life needing air thing - failed the test because evidence showed its predictions were incorrect (courtesy of M. Pasteur..and then many, many others, including high school students today).
There's another classification, Law, which science doesn't use anymore. Why? Because our understanding of the Universe is constantly being refined. A perfectly reasonable theory to Aristotle is absolute BS to us today for any number of reasons - we understand genetics, or data gathered by means inaccessible to an ancient Greek, for example. As a result, to say something is Law, that it is unassailably true for ever and ever...science just doesn't buy that kind of ego anymore. Science shouldn't have ego - If you don't make mistakes, you're doing it wrong; If you don't correct those mistakes, you're doing it really wrong; If you can't accept you're mistaken, you're not doing it at all.
So the French Jello Nebula...
We've never observed anything that could be explained by that.
There are no phenomena that suggest it.
Ergo, the French Jello Nebula isn't even a hypothesis; it's what's known as a WAG - Wild-Assed Guess. Something not rooted in any reality, just thrown out there for the sake of throwing something.
And that, dear friends, that just isn't science.
Still doesn't prove if Dark Matter has positive or negative energy considering that it is a theoretical concept. For all we know, it doesn't have positive or negative energy, but complex or imaginary energy.
Subnautica using Dark Matter Reactors likely has to deal with the Dark Matter Engine in Futurama. At least it is better than using Unobtanium as a fuel source.
Yeah, it kinda does, sorry to say. Dark matter is used to explain the gravitational interactions of stellar bodies in a way that doesn't violate General Relativity. Consequently, it has to exert a normal gravitational influence (i.e. positive per unit mass). While it isn't believed to have an electromagnetic force (wouldn't be dark, then), its existence is inferred from gravitational effect, a positive gravitational effect. Ergo, theoretical dark matter, used to balance the equation in line with General Relativity, is positive.
Mass and energy aren't the same thing, you're right, but they are interchangeable, a la E=mc^2. But the key thing to take away from that is that the signs don't - and can't - just spontaneously flip. If you have positive mass, it has to yield positive energy, and vice versa. To go from positive mass to negative energy would require a sign flip, and that just can't happen in the equation (even a "negative c," if such a thing could exist, wouldn't work; the square of a negative number is positive). The only way to get a negative energy value is from a negative mass value, and the only way to get a negative mass value is from a negative energy value. No substitutions, exchanges, or refunds allowed.
Science evolves over time. Some people treat science like religious dogma where refuting certain theories is blasphemy. While science is about survival of the fittest. That is why scientists have to be willing to keep an open mind and accept evidence that disproves their beloved theories. Some theories get discarded due to observations, some theories only work in certain circumstances (Classical Mechanics doesn't apply to relativistic velocities), and some theories evolve.
In a few decades or centuries, some brilliant physicist might come up with a theory that disproves E=mc^2 or at least make it work in only certain situations. After all, it seems to be a bit too simple to work in all situations or explain the complexities of matter and energy. Limiting matter and energy to simple equations and having just negative and positive versions seems like it is just scratching the surface of what matter and energy truly is.
We have never observed negative mass-energy. In fact, it is likely that stuff with negative energy state can not exist at all because it would mean that stuff with lower energy state than zero can exist so vacuum can spontaneously decay into that stuff. Some scientists had found workaround over this problem this problem but its waaaay above my level of expertise to understand their theory.
I never said it was real; it was supposed to be so ridiculous that it is not rooted in reality. It was an example on how it impossible to completely disprove the existence of something. I didn't mean it literally.
Also true! But I think it goes in the 'possible, but rather unlikely' box until proven otherwise.
I can disprove it, simply by merit of the fact that jello cannot speak. There simply isn't any structure you can build from nothing but jello that is capable of thought or speech. So while there might be a french nebula, and there might be a nebula made out of jello, they aren't the same one. There could even be a french nebula made of something that looks, feels, and tastes like jello, but it would have to have a different chemical makeup.
That's STILL not proof. Have you searched the entire known universe yet? No, no you have not.
But I don't need to search the whole universe, because you have provided two known quantities: Jello and the ability to speak french. Those are both things that I know enough about to know that nowhere in the universe is jello able to speak french. If it can speak french, it is not jello. If it is jello, it can't speak french.
The whole point of science is to be able to say what will or won't and can and can't happen without having to search everywhere in the universe to make sure. For instance, I know that the center of the earth does not actually have dinosaurs in it, even though no one has been there. I and anyone else who knows the first thing about geology know this because we have observed the processes at the surface of the earth and deduced from them what exists deeper down, and from that we know for certain that it is not dinosaurs.
It was an example. I am not claiming that there is such a thing as a French Jell-O nebula, it was an example about how the existence of anything cannot be completely disproven. I repeat, I am NOT SAYING IT DOES EXIST. I wanted a ludicrous example to get my point across, and a "French Jell-O nebula" was the first thing that came into my head.
Just clearing things up.
I'd say starting with the best harder sci-fi authors. They introduce "it just works, okay" stuff for shields and star drives, but whenever possible, stick with believable orbital mechanics.
Like, floating chunks of rock like in the Avatar movie is silly, and requires made-up elements and/or bio-magic. And made-up elements nearly always results in humans trying to game systems to get infinite power or invincibility or immortality, or other fun stuff. Or wondering why the humans in the movie don't try.
But Larry Nivens Integral Trees requires a simple gas torus around a neutron star. I haven't run the math, but it requires a lot less suspension of disbelief for me. And trilateral symmetry makes a lot of sense in true zero-gee evolution.