Thus spake Kent Paul Dolan
Oh No wrote:

Of course we already know that we need to develop
a new theory of physics, and have done for about
seventy years since quantum theory and general
relativity are not compatible. All I have been
saying is that Cold Dark matter and dark energy
are symptomatic of the type of thing which arises
when there is something wrong in the model used to
describe physics. They do indeed require some
rewriting of the rules of physics.

So were and did special and general relativity.

Note that they were produced by a mathematical theorist.

In the minds of most working astronomers, dark
matter and energy _are_ the needed changes.

Working astronomer's, by and large, are not equipped to deal with the
mathematical issues which arise in the unification of quantum theory and
general relativity. That is the domain of the mathematical physicist.

You are falling for the old logical trap that when
something is not understood (here the formulation
that will blend quantum and gravity concerns), that
lack of understanding constitutes affirmative
evidence for unlikely explanations.

Actually not, a) because I do understand a formulation that does blend
quantum theory and gravity, and b) because it produces clear predictions
which include the explanations I have given. This is a matter of
mathematics.


As far as I know the only rewriting of the rules
of physics to date which unifies general
relativity and quantum theory in a consistent
model is the teleconnection. I have tested
numerous empirical predictions of the
teleconnection and found them consistent with
observation in a universe with neither cold dark
matter nor dark energy.

This seems to be part of the same syndrome that has
you ignoring/culling the evidence that disagrees
with you in your discussions with Chalky and John
Bell.

There wasn't any evidence that disagreed with me. Actually, some of the
evidence I "culled" as you put it favoured the teleconnection. In
particular the HZST data did. Nonetheless, it was not possible to
combine it with the other datasets on purely statistical grounds.

There's _lots_ of very good, thoroughly peer
reviewed evidence for dark matter, and more arriving
constantly. That's why it has become the
overwhelmingly held opinion among practicing
cosmologists.

It is all based on the analysis of redshift and/or lensing.

http://images.google.com/images?q=hu...ark.matter+map

Can you really look at a cold dark matter map
[developed by 70-odd scientists who can "do the
math" and are practicing astronomers of the
reputation rank that rate Hubble time], covering
half the span of time, that even shows cold dark
matter collapsing over time from its own gravity,
shows it lensing the distant stars, shows it both in
and between galaxies and clusters of galaxies, and
simply _ignore_ its reality, and claim there is _no
such evidence_?

Of course. They can do the math of classical general relativity, but
they cannot, as yet do the math of the teleconnection. When that math is
done it will produce an entirely different map. I wouldn't mind betting
that it produces a map with no cold dark matter.

What, for you, would _constitute_ evidence, if that
survey does not?

The inconsistency between lensing profiles and rotation curves
referenced in my earlier post constitutes evidence. I am shortly going
to release some fairly conclusive evidence, which you will be able to
test yourself based on online stellar databases.

You need desperately much to internalize the concept
that _one_ confounding datum sinks a theory, and
stop ignoring the ones that do or will sink yours.

I suggest you read the references I gave you on lensing profiles and
apply the criterion yourself.


Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email