Secrets of Dark Matter

Stephen Tonkin wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:

[...]

I tend to agree. Despite its many problems, BBT is the best theory we've
got.

[...]

What is not in doubt is that there is a lot of non-luminous
gravitating matter that we cannot see or detect at present.


Actually, AIUI there is some doubt in some quarters. IIRC there is a
hypothesis that does away with the need for dark matter by postulating a
mean path length -- the figure 17kpc lurches to mind, but is probably
wrong -- for gravitons. I have no more problem accepting a mean path
length we cannot measure for a particle that we cannot detect than I do
accepting the existence of matter that we cannot detect.

ISTR it is more along the lines of having gravitons with mass and
breaking Lorentz invariance. Is this the hypothesis that you mean?

http://moriond.in2p3.fr/EW/2005/Tran...v/Tinyakov.pdf

Seems to me like it makes testable predictions so it qualifies as a
scientific theory.

To me it seems increasingly likely that Fred Hoyle was right
(continuous
creation) and the microwave background is caused by something other than
the Big Bang.

Not a chance. Even in the 1960's it was apparent that the Steady State
Universe was totally inconsistent

[...]

there is essentially no doubt that remotest parts of the universe are
receeding from us at speeds close to c.

AIUI Hoyle and Wickramasinghe postulated a Continuous Creation that is
not Steady State and which is consistent with the recession speed
observations.

ISTR they did, but it doesn't really have much appeal. That the young
universe looks different (much more active) compared to the present day
and makes Big Bang a far more natural choice with fewer ad hoc adjustments.

Regards,
Martin Brown

I will make it easy for you.

The problem is how the AU is derived and used by Newton in his
application to planetary heliocentric motion.

http://encarta.msn.com/media_4615477...real_Time.html

After breaking several astronomical principles in order to refer
planetary motion off mean Sun/Earth distances he does everyone a favor
and announces -

"I likewise call attractions and impulses, in the same sense,
accelerative, and motive; and use the words attraction, impulse or
propensity of any sort towards a centre, promiscuously, and
indifferently, one for another; considering those forces not
physically, but mathematically: wherefore, the reader is not to
imagine, that by those words, I anywhere take upon me to define the
kind, or the manner of any action, the causes or the physical reason
thereof, or that I attribute forces, in a true and physical sense, to
certain centres (which are only mathematical points); when at any time
I happen to speak of centres as attracting, or as endued with
attractive powers."

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/...tions.htm#time

It is not just a matter of being incorrect ,Newton made misjudgements
based on Flamsteed's false 'proof' of axial rotation based on the
return of a star in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.

The program tonight on Horizon will be just another useless exercise on
Newtonian adulation regardless of what they think is wrong.He really
was incorrect but there is nobody around good enough to match his
maneuvering.

Poor Albert was still working with 'fixed stars' or pre-Galactic
models which had served Newton and indeed his reasons for 'curving' the
visible universe is still the most unintentionally hilarious treatment
of any person,anywhere -

"There are stars everywhere, so that the density of matter, although
very variable in detail, is nevertheless on the average everywhere the
same. In other words: However far we might travel through space, we
should find everywhere an attenuated swarm of fixed stars of
approximately the same kind and density. 1
This view is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The latter
theory rather requires that the universe should have a kind of centre
in which the density of the stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed
outwards from this centre the group-density of the stars should
diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an
infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a finite
island in the infinite ocean of space. 1 2
This conception is in itself not very satisfactory. It is still less
satisfactory because it leads to the result that the light emitted by
the stars and also individual stars of the stellar system are
perpetually passing out into infinite space, never to return, and
without ever again coming into interaction with other objects of
nature. Such a finite material universe would be destined to become
gradually but systematically impoverished. "

http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html

That is when I stopped dealing with relativity and started
concentrating on what Newton really did wrong.If anyone can believe
that it is a shame that light leaving stars is the basis for the exotic
spacetime nonsense well they are welcome to that feebleminded,subhuman
conception but while it is a genuine joke,the real Newtonian
maneuvering is certainly not.

No genius ever betrays his kind because of intellectual greed and here
Newton was an exception.The cost to humanity has been enormous yet it
can be easily untangled and set right with a bit of effort.How many
people will await the Horizon documentary tonight with the same high
expectations but will get the same unsatisfying answers with the same
dull phony ponderings.The actual answers derived from Copernican
heliocentricity and its later Keplerian/Roemerian refinements are
exciting and easily enjoyable but buried under Newtonian rubbish.When
that documentary comes out I will enjoy it with others but I will not
hold my breath waiting .

Perhaps dark matter is simply the fabric (canvas) of space on which the
universe is painted? (or screen on which it is projected?)

Well, it's as plausible as anything oriel comes up with on one of his
better days. ;-)

I have no problem with Newton's absolute/relative space and time
insofar as they represent a consistent picture of heliocentricity as
he saw it and although the Newtonian astronomical working principles
are incorrect in contrast to the descriptions provided by
Copernicus,Kepler and even Galileo ,every single person here still uses
his description of planetary motions as valid.

It is a thankless task to provide the real explanation for the adoption
of Copernican heliocentricity and,more importantly, its working
principles against the flawed Newtonian conception and the sidereal
working principles that proves now only to be a calendrically driven
convenience for optical astronomers.It is easy to see how an .986 deg/3
min 56 sec axial coordinate was hammered into an orbital displacement
but this is just one of many tamperings that highlight the
errors,misjudgements and misconduct of that era.

Genuine investigators will eventually find themselves bypassing the
20th century excesses and return to Newton's misjudgements in order to
provide an more fluent description of the structure and motions of
planets and solar systems insofar as the major obstacles exist at the
juncture where the solar system is no longer isolated from the effects
of its motion around the galactic axis.

I enjoyed the documentary,even while exactly knowing where the
obstacles exists, because the problems were presented in a manageable
way.I will tell anyone who cares that they cannot,I repeat cannot come
to satisfactory working principles while retaining the original
Newtonian heliocentric outlook in contrast to the correct
Copernican/Keplerian framework.Regardless of what anyone thinks or
says,empiricists retain absolute/relative space or that peculiar
Newtonian quasi-geocentric outlook and I assure them,it is simply not
worth the effort to retain it.People are looking for heroes with real
accomplishements rather than clawing celebrity for its own sake,more
often than not the true scientists are those who present documentaries
of the connection between life and surrounding conditions or the
magnificence of extreme astronomical and terrestial nature without
padding it with speculation.The documentary the other night was the
first sign that a more balanced approach highlights what is substance
and what is not and long may it continue.

[ External conditions are never good for balancing responsibilities
towards concerns for the astronomical heritage and those of everyday
existence but these things are luxuries compared to real pressures of
men who work to feed their kids so I have no reason to complain and
neither does anyone else here. I have come to appreceate that genuine
investigators do engage in the same struggle to surmount the
limitations imposed by 17th century conceptions and have bypass the
exotic 20th century rubbish which will always shout for attension and
the next phase is to present things in a less cluttered and a less
hurried way.]

"Chris.B" wrote in message
oups.com...
Perhaps dark matter is simply the fabric (canvas) of space on which the
universe is painted? (or screen on which it is projected?)

My wierd thoughts as well. It's the "rest" of the universe - just in
dimensions that we can't measure or understand right now. If M-theory
posits 11 dimensions, then surely the mass/energy in the non-classical
dimensions has effect.

Well, it's as plausible as anything oriel comes up with on one of his
better days. ;-)

Nah - **** it. He must be right @-)

Wasn't it adm who wrote:

My wierd thoughts as well. It's the "rest" of the universe - just in
dimensions that we can't measure or understand right now. If M-theory
posits 11 dimensions, then surely the mass/energy in the non-classical
dimensions has effect.

My thoughts exactly.
In particular, these posts from last year on this group
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sc...8cf86c6b5fa703
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sc...62c7056a9a0cd4
--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure

Wouldn't multiple dimensions require some rather strict
cross-dimensional physical placement? The leakage from even a small
black hole popping up on the dining table is apt to spoil ones
appetite. Surely any cross-dimensional gravitational effects should be
detectable?

One wonders whether photons are indeed blocked between dimensions? This
might offer an explanation for the genuine sightings of inexplicable
UFOs and ghosts. Are they "simply" time-shifted images of
other-dimensional realities seen across temporarily weak or
near-coincident dimensional barriers? Perhaps time is really a much
weaker force tham we commonly imagine?

How am I doing? ;-)

*|;ø)#

Wasn't it Chris.B who wrote:
Wouldn't multiple dimensions require some rather strict
cross-dimensional physical placement? The leakage from even a small
black hole popping up on the dining table is apt to spoil ones
appetite. Surely any cross-dimensional gravitational effects should be
detectable?

It depends how close the next universe is. If the nearest brane that
contains matter happens to be the equivalent of a few tens of thousand
light years away, then the gravity that leaks into our universe would be
smeared out as if it were coming from diffuse invisible sources the size
of a galaxy.

--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure

How closely can the maths predict interdimensional (interbranal?)
distances?