|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Random thought: Dark Matter & Dark Energy vs. Strong & Weak Nuclear Forces
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:16:46 -0800, Daniel Pitts
wrote: [...] My thoughts along this idea were more that we might misunderstand gravity. We might understand its influence on a medium-scale, but what prevents it from being repulsive a large scales? ....the observation that this is not even remotely close to being possibly true? If you think in current terms, according to relativity, a gravity well curves space and looks something like: You say "according to relativity" like it is relevant to your spew. _______ ________ \/ But what if it looks more like: ____ ____ .-^ \/ ^-. It "looks like" neither. An embedding of the Schwarzschild manifold in Euclidean space doesn't look like that, and nor does anything else. This could lead to the effect of Dark Energy, close things fall toward the well, far things fall away from the well. No. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Random thought: Dark Matter & Dark Energy vs. Strong & WeakNuclear Forces
On Dec 6, 9:52 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:16:46 -0800, Daniel wrote: [...] My thoughts along this idea were more that we might misunderstand gravity. We might understand its influence on a medium-scale, but what prevents it from being repulsive a large scales? ...the observation that this is not even remotely close to being possibly true? If you think in current terms, according to relativity, a gravity well curves space and looks something like: You say "according to relativity" like it is relevant to your spew. _______ ________ \/ But what if it looks more like: ____ ____ .-^ \/ ^-. It "looks like" neither. An embedding of the Schwarzschild manifold in Euclidean space doesn't look like that, and nor does anything else. This could lead to the effect of Dark Energy, close things fall toward the well, far things fall away from the well. No. Goose, you're an idiot. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Random thought: Dark Matter & Dark Energy vs. Strong & Weak Nuclear Forces
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:23:58 -0800 (PST), malibu
wrote: On Dec 6, 9:52 pm, Eric Gisse wrote: On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:16:46 -0800, Daniel wrote: [...] My thoughts along this idea were more that we might misunderstand gravity. We might understand its influence on a medium-scale, but what prevents it from being repulsive a large scales? ...the observation that this is not even remotely close to being possibly true? If you think in current terms, according to relativity, a gravity well curves space and looks something like: You say "according to relativity" like it is relevant to your spew. _______ ________ \/ But what if it looks more like: ____ ____ .-^ \/ ^-. It "looks like" neither. An embedding of the Schwarzschild manifold in Euclidean space doesn't look like that, and nor does anything else. This could lead to the effect of Dark Energy, close things fall toward the well, far things fall away from the well. No. Goose, you're an idiot. At least you had the sense to remove "galaxy model for the atom" from your signature before calling me an idiot. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Random thought: Dark Matter & Dark Energy vs. Strong & WeakNuclear Forces
On Dec 7, 1:16 am, Daniel Pitts
wrote: Y.Porat wrote: On Dec 6, 8:29 am, Yousuf Khan wrote: A random thought that just entered my mind a few days back was what if Dark Energy and Dark Matter were really aspects respectively of the Weak and Strong Nuclear Forces acting out on the cosmic scale? They kind of act the same. The Dark Matter sort of acts like the Strong Force: holds the outer edges of a galaxy from falling off, and holds the galaxies together in clusters, but seems to mysteriously disappear the closer you get to the centre of a galaxy. And then the Dark Energy sort of acts like the Weak Force: it is limp-wristed against the Strong at close distances, but go out far enough and it just dominates the Strong. We've also heard those theories about what if our Universe were just an atom within a larger Super-Universe (SuperVerse)? Then if it's merely an atom (or maybe more like a molecule) of the Superverse, then why not have the Superverse's version of the nuclear forces acting on it? That way the galaxies are just the quarks. They form up into clusters, which are just the atomic nucleii. The clusters come together to form a single complex molecule, with the intergalactic gas being the electron cloud. I'm sure it sounds pretty kooky, but has anyone else thought of correlating the nuclear forces out at the cosmic level? Yousuf Khan ----------------- may be you are in the right direction but not deep enough! dark matter seems to me **much finer and tinyer* than week forces agents my candidfate for it is the 'Circlon' look fo r the Circon idea and just remember what old Catto saied: 'no mass ---no real physics '!! ATB Y.Porat -------------------------- My thoughts along this idea were more that we might misunderstand gravity. We might understand its influence on a medium-scale, but what prevents it from being repulsive a large scales? If you think in current terms, according to relativity, a gravity well curves space and looks something like: _______ ________ \/ But what if it looks more like: ____ ____ .-^ \/ ^-. This could lead to the effect of Dark Energy, close things fall toward the well, far things fall away from the well. -- Daniel Pitts' Tech Blog: http://virtualinfinity.net/wordpress/- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -------------- if you will understand the Circlon idea you might understand why it is less repulsive in bigger distances: the Circlon moves naturally **in closed circles* ie its range is limited !! ATB Y.Porat ------------------------- |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Random thought: Dark Matter & Dark Energy vs. Strong & WeakNuclear Forces
On Dec 7, 2:04 am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Dec 7, 1:16 am, Daniel Pitts wrote: Y.Porat wrote: On Dec 6, 8:29 am, Yousuf Khan wrote: A random thought that just entered my mind a few days back was what if Dark Energy and Dark Matter were really aspects respectively of the Weak and Strong Nuclear Forces acting out on the cosmic scale? They kind of act the same. The Dark Matter sort of acts like the Strong Force: holds the outer edges of a galaxy from falling off, and holds the galaxies together in clusters, but seems to mysteriously disappear the closer you get to the centre of a galaxy. And then the Dark Energy sort of acts like the Weak Force: it is limp-wristed against the Strong at close distances, but go out far enough and it just dominates the Strong. We've also heard those theories about what if our Universe were just an atom within a larger Super-Universe (SuperVerse)? Then if it's merely an atom (or maybe more like a molecule) of the Superverse, then why not have the Superverse's version of the nuclear forces acting on it? That way the galaxies are just the quarks. They form up into clusters, which are just the atomic nucleii. The clusters come together to form a single complex molecule, with the intergalactic gas being the electron cloud. I'm sure it sounds pretty kooky, but has anyone else thought of correlating the nuclear forces out at the cosmic level? Yousuf Khan ----------------- may be you are in the right direction but not deep enough! dark matter seems to me **much finer and tinyer* than week forces agents my candidfate for it is the 'Circlon' look fo r the Circon idea and just remember what old Catto saied: 'no mass ---no real physics '!! ATB Y.Porat -------------------------- My thoughts along this idea were more that we might misunderstand gravity. We might understand its influence on a medium-scale, but what prevents it from being repulsive a large scales? If you think in current terms, according to relativity, a gravity well curves space and looks something like: _______ ________ \/ But what if it looks more like: ____ ____ .-^ \/ ^-. This could lead to the effect of Dark Energy, close things fall toward the well, far things fall away from the well. -- Daniel Pitts' Tech Blog: http://virtualinfinity.net/wordpress/- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -------------- if you will understand the Circlon idea you might understand why it is less repulsive in bigger distances: the Circlon moves naturally **in closed circles* ie its range is limited !! ATB Y.Porat ------------------------- We will gladly discuss your theory when you present the mathematical formalism. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Random thought: Dark Matter & Dark Energy vs. Strong & WeakNuclear Forces
On Dec 8, 12:56 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Dec 7, 2:04 am, "Y.Porat" wrote: On Dec 7, 1:16 am, Daniel Pitts wrote: Y.Porat wrote: On Dec 6, 8:29 am, Yousuf Khan wrote: A random thought that just entered my mind a few days back was what if Dark Energy and Dark Matter were really aspects respectively of the Weak and Strong Nuclear Forces acting out on the cosmic scale? They kind of act the same. The Dark Matter sort of acts like the Strong Force: holds the outer edges of a galaxy from falling off, and holds the galaxies together in clusters, but seems to mysteriously disappear the closer you get to the centre of a galaxy. And then the Dark Energy sort of acts like the Weak Force: it is limp-wristed against the Strong at close distances, but go out far enough and it just dominates the Strong. We've also heard those theories about what if our Universe were just an atom within a larger Super-Universe (SuperVerse)? Then if it's merely an atom (or maybe more like a molecule) of the Superverse, then why not have the Superverse's version of the nuclear forces acting on it? That way the galaxies are just the quarks. They form up into clusters, which are just the atomic nucleii. The clusters come together to form a single complex molecule, with the intergalactic gas being the electron cloud. I'm sure it sounds pretty kooky, but has anyone else thought of correlating the nuclear forces out at the cosmic level? Yousuf Khan ----------------- may be you are in the right direction but not deep enough! dark matter seems to me **much finer and tinyer* than week forces agents my candidfate for it is the 'Circlon' look fo r the Circon idea and just remember what old Catto saied: 'no mass ---no real physics '!! ATB Y.Porat -------------------------- My thoughts along this idea were more that we might misunderstand gravity. We might understand its influence on a medium-scale, but what prevents it from being repulsive a large scales? If you think in current terms, according to relativity, a gravity well curves space and looks something like: _______ ________ \/ But what if it looks more like: ____ ____ .-^ \/ ^-. This could lead to the effect of Dark Energy, close things fall toward the well, far things fall away from the well. -- Daniel Pitts' Tech Blog: http://virtualinfinity.net/wordpress/- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -------------- if you will understand the Circlon idea you might understand why it is less repulsive in bigger distances: the Circlon moves naturally **in closed circles* ie its range is limited !! ATB Y.Porat ------------------------- We will gladly discuss your theory when you present the mathematical formalism.- --------------- first of all i have to thank God that you are ready to duscuss with me ... (:-) 2 in my table 2 there is a simple linear eauation that shwes that the **volume that a light element or a heavy one occupy practically the same volume ie sp = k M while sp is the specific weight of the Atom and M is its Atomic weight later i show that even compounds in which the only variable is a different Atom ie light ones or heavy ones--also ocupy the same volume now sorry that this is a too primitive mathematics foryou but it is experimental facts with FAR GOING CONCUSIONS FOPR INLELLIGENT OPEN MINDED PEOPLE !! 2 one of your big misatkes is to think that breakthroughsin science can be done **only mathematically ** may be jsut begines with wrong teachers ...!! breakthroughs in scince can be done fisrt of all by PHYSICS THINKING not by mathematical thinking 3 mymodel was developed by gathering numetic data about masses of fdifferent Atoms and their isotops trying to find the common base or common basic structure of the nuc i did about a thousand trial and error calculations forsdt by guessing the base elements base components that are repeating tyhemselves and are common to all Atoms and isotiops if youlike it was AN ITERATION SYSTEM! iteratjon is a legitimate mathematical system used even in computer calcualtions make a long trial and errod seriesof calculations in with you have a target that you have to reah and advance neerer and rearrer to it by coreactiong your previous huesses by beyyer ones and see if it brings you closer tothe target now if you work on it along YEARS!! it becomes later easyier because you start tolearn the **rules of the game ** and find common features to all the nucs later you correct it by chemical data nuclear data etc toget closer and closer to satisfy all of them and Voila! at llast all that ramdom music strats to sooud like a big conducted symphony! i wonder if you even in your life will experience such a huge satisfation while all those bits and peaces 'suddenly combine all together to one harminical entity that is not your knownmathematics that cannot as is even do waht i did !! it is a ciombination of some knwledge , data hrd workd maybe some education qualities as an experience structral engineer and some mabe *some luck and not least a lot of perceverance so botom line ifyouinsist about sme foprmal mathematical system it is complicated system of ITTERATION!! sorry my spell checking i canhardly see what i typed and last bjut not least that model that i developed gave me a base to find that many paradigma cannot be right it does not 'stick' to othjer findings and only by getting rid of it i could acomplish the unification of all data for insatnce one of the most difficult breakthroughs for accomplishing it was torealise that there is no direct connection betyween the number of eelctrons arould the nuc and the number of Protons !!!! iot needs to be a special 'character' to dare asnd do that conclusion !!! ATB Y.Porat ------------------- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Random thought: Dark Matter & Dark Energy vs. Strong & WeakNuclear Forces
On Dec 6, 11:35 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
Last time I looked, "universe" means everything. "Observable universe" is that portion causally connected to us. Well, if there is a Superverse exerting its nuclear forces on our Microverse, then there may be more that is causally connected than merely what we can see. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Random thought: Dark Matter & Dark Energy vs. Strong & Weak Nuclear Forces
"YKhan" wrote in message
... On Dec 6, 11:35 am, Sam Wormley wrote: Last time I looked, "universe" means everything. "Observable universe" is that portion causally connected to us. Well, if there is a Superverse exerting its nuclear forces on our Microverse, then there may be more that is causally connected than merely what we can see. "See" in physics means detectable by its influence. If something is exerting forces that have measurable effects, then it is by definition part of the Universe. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Updated TOE explains Quarks, Magnetism, Dark matter and Dark energy and how they are related | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 22nd 06 07:05 AM |
Dark matter and dark energy are caused by only gravity and the boyancy effect | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 3 | April 16th 06 06:40 PM |
Dark matter and dark energy are caused by only gravity and the boyancy effect | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 1 | April 12th 06 08:03 PM |
Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Black Holes - New Scientist article | Wally Anglesea™ | Misc | 15 | March 14th 06 06:33 PM |
3D Map of Universe Bolsters Case for Dark Energy and Dark Matter(Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 29th 03 01:06 AM |