Unseen "stuff" controls the universe.

(Bilge) wrote in message ...
Louis Nielsen:
Bilge, I call my Quantum Theory about The Universe a 'unified theory'
because it connects physical quantities from macrocosmos and
microcosmos. The Theory gives a unification of the smallest with the
biggest.

Here is the quantum theory prove which line is wrong:

1. Both Space and Copper are mediums and both have a permittivity.

2. When a high voltage/current(energy) gets near breaching the limits
of the copper's permittivity then excess Energy is expelled through
heat (photon) flowing out of the copper wire.

3. You will find this Energy is expelled in specific amounts (quantas
= quantities of Energy) related to the frequency of the voltage as
well as the PERMITTIVITY of the copper,

4. Likewise for space: Plank's quanta is "NOT" only a factor of
frequency but a constant proportional with the PERMITTIVITY of SPACE
(thus as well speed of light).

Peter K.:
(Bilge) wrote in message
e-al.net...
Louis Nielsen:
Bilge, I call my Quantum Theory about The Universe a 'unified theory'
because it connects physical quantities from macrocosmos and
microcosmos. The Theory gives a unification of the smallest with the
biggest.

Here is the quantum theory prove which line is wrong:

Give it a rest, moron.

(Peter K.) wrote in message

4. Likewise for space: Plank's quanta is "NOT" only a factor of
frequency but a constant proportional with the PERMITTIVITY of SPACE
(thus as well speed of light).

I provide very possible evidence that Plank's quanta is derived from
space's permittivity/ligth's velocity and "moron" is the only
intelligent rebuttle given! Moron is the blind that cannot contradict
and/or simply find my statements proposterous.

It's called the unified "quanta...um" field theory

Unified means unified

"One" Unifies quanta with space's permittivity and light's speed and
none are intelligent enough to notice and/or disprove!?!

Peter K. wrote in message
om...
(Peter K.) wrote in message

4. Likewise for space: Plank's quanta is "NOT" only a factor of
frequency but a constant proportional with the PERMITTIVITY of SPACE
(thus as well speed of light).

I provide very possible evidence that Plank's quanta is derived from
space's permittivity/ligth's velocity and "moron" is the only
intelligent rebuttle given! Moron is the blind that cannot contradict
and/or simply find my statements proposterous.

It's called the unified "quanta...um" field theory

Unified means unified

"One" Unifies quanta with space's permittivity and light's speed and
none are intelligent enough to notice and/or disprove!?!

Peter K. is influenced by delusions of competency. [Old Man]

"Peter K." wrote in message
om...
(Bilge) wrote in message
...
Louis Nielsen:
Bilge, I call my Quantum Theory about The Universe a 'unified theory'
because it connects physical quantities from macrocosmos and
microcosmos. The Theory gives a unification of the smallest with the
biggest.

Here is the quantum theory prove which line is wrong:

1. Both Space and Copper are mediums and both have a permittivity.

2. When a high voltage/current(energy) gets near breaching the limits
of the copper's permittivity then excess Energy is expelled through
heat (photon) flowing out of the copper wire.

Voltage, current, and energy have very specific (and different) meanings in
physics. You have treated them all the same above. That is wrong. QED.

Jason

Hi:

My analysis of the observations available for the universe - red shift, and
spiral galaxy rotation curves - has shown me that a simple generalization
(adding a linear term A*r) will explain the rotation curves, and the motion
of groups of galaxies described by Fred Zwicky without needing dark matter.

Integrating the additional force over distance provides a red shift that is
a linear function of distance and predicts "tired light" of Zwicky.

The red shift as a linear function of distance does not measure velocity but
just distance. Even Hubble was not convinced of the ASSUMPTION that red
shift measures velocity.

My new model reduces the need for the expansion of the universe or the
acceleration of the expansion. There is no need for dark energy or a negaive
gravitational constant or the cosmic constant.

It also predicts that the Hubble constant decreases to an asymptotic value
for distant stars.

Details are provided at my web site:

http://inventing-solutions.com/new-universe.htm

I would like comments.

Sol Aisenberg


"Joseph Lazio" wrote in message
...
"NV" == Nicolaas Vroom writes:

NV "Joseph Lazio" schreef in bericht
NV ...
"JR" == Jeff Root writes:

My recollection of rotation curves is such as those shown by Kent
(Figure 1, URL:

http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...=1987AJ.....93..
816K
).

NV This document at page 5 = page 821 shows the following sentence:
NV "In principle, the bulge and the disk must be treated differently
NV since they contribute in different ways to the rotation curve" Why
NV differently ? What is meant with: "different ways" In principle
NV the rotation curve at each distance r from the center of the
NV galaxy depents on the mass dm at each position x,y,z

I don't have my copy of Binney & Tremaine in front of me, but I have a
dim recollection that the gravitational potential of a disk is
different than that of a spherical distribution. That has an impact
on the rotation curve. See
URL:http://www.astro.su.se/%7Epawel/gradprobl.2.html for examples.

NV Next they write: "Also they are likely to have different M/L
NV ratios" Why ?

NV IMO it is not so strange that M/L ratios are different but if that
NV is the case and when there is a disk it becomes more difficult to
NV calculate the mass of the disk accurately.

The stars are different. Bulges are dominated by low-mass stars,
comparable to the Sun. Most of the light from a disk comes from the
high-mass stars (which are absent in a bulge), but the high-mass stars
contribute very little to the overall mass of the disk. (A 10 solar
mass star might have a luminosity of 100 solar luminosities.)

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

"sol aisenberg" wrote in message
thlink.net...

Description of non peer-reviewed theory deleted.



Details are provided at my web site:

http://inventing-solutions.com/new-universe.htm

I would like comments.


How do you explain recent lensing measurements which seem to confirm the
existence of dark matter?

Jason

"Jason Rhodes" wrote in message
...

"sol aisenberg" wrote in message
thlink.net...

Description of non peer-reviewed theory deleted.



Details are provided at my web site:

http://inventing-solutions.com/new-universe.htm

I would like comments.


How do you explain recent lensing measurements which seem to confirm the
existence of dark matter?

Jason

The cosmic radiation is rippled with hot and cool spots. Some are a result
of lumps in the primordial cosmic gravy and are the seeds of galaxies and
other conglomerations of matter. But other hot spots, theorists point out,
may be generated by the passage of microwaves through the modern universe.

As a microwave passes through a large cloud of galaxies, its energy will
first increase, as a rolling marble speeds up when it hits a dip in the
road. Later, as the microwave leaves the cloud, gravity will take away some
energy, as the marble climbs out of the dip.

In a universe that is geometrically "flat" and with no dark energy, those
effects will cancel out. No net change in the energy of the microwaves will
occur.

But in an accelerating universe, the effects will not always cancel out. In
the largest agglomerations of matter, so-called superclusters that are
forming, the microwaves will gain energy and thus appear hotter.

In such systems, tens of millions of light-years across, the force of dark
energy that is trying to push apart the cloud is winning the battle over the
gravity trying to pull together the galaxies. As a result, the cloud becomes
less dense rather than more dense as the microwaves pass through it,
explained Dr. Andrew J. Connolly, a team member from the University of
Pittsburgh.

It takes less energy for them to climb back out than they acquired falling
in.

Dr. Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at the University of Pennsylvania, compared
the effect to racking up credit card debts in an inflationary era.

"The payback is less than what is borrowed," Dr. Tegmark said.

So the microwaves should be slightly hotter, by a minuscule fraction of a
degree.

The effect is known as the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, after Dr. Arthur
M. Wolfe, who is now at the University of California in San Diego, and Dr.
Rainer K. Sachs, who is now at the University of California at Berkeley, who
first investigated the effects of lumps in the universe on the cosmic
microwaves in 1967.

In recent months, several groups, including those led by Dr. Stephen Boughn
of Haverford College in Pennsylvania, Dr. Michael R. Nolta of Princeton and
Dr. Pablo Fosalba of the Institute of Astrophysics in Paris, have reported
promising correlations between cosmic hot spots and sky catalogs of radio
sources and X-rays, as well as galaxy maps.

In an e-mail message referring to the findings of the multinational team,
Dr. Fosalba, who used part of the Sloan information, said, "Despite the fact
that we are using different galaxy samples, results from both analyses are
in very good agreement and provide strong evidence for dark energy in the
universe."

Dr. Scranton, also in an e-mail message, said his team's work was important
in validating the dark energy because it relied on sky survey data not
available to other teams.



Spud