A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Dark matter and dark energy are caused by only gravity and the boyancy effect



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 13th 06, 05:44 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dark matter and dark energy are caused by only gravity and the boyancy effect


Hexenmeister wrote:
wrote in message oups.com...
| Bill, you can do better than that!
|
| What about the rest of you, PD, Wormley, Eric, Timo and the rest --
| it's no fun if you don't come out and play!
|
| Now I should have just loaded you guys up with all the ammo you need by
| refuting several major scientific dogmas:
|
| The aether exists.

Prove it, idiot.


Maybe a better question for you is - prove that it doesn't exist! The
MMX experiment by itself didn't rule out the aether. It only showed
that it isn't moving at Earth's orbital speed. A great many things -
like how EM travels, how atoms are arranged, magnetic force, atomic
spectra, time dialation, inertia, what is dark matter and what causes
dark energy can be simply explained in terms of an aether. See my TOE
at:

http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html

Things usually cannot be absolutely proved, however, just the fact that
many things can be explained in terms of an aether is evidence that it
may be true.

It would be best to experimentally prove the aether exists. Since MMX
type experiments are not convincing, I would suggest we try to find
compression effects. Even if the aether flows through almost anything
as if it wasn't there, I would imagine there should be some resistance.
So if you take a closed evacuated cylinder and fire a projectile to the
closed end, you might find it puts up more resistance than if the
cylinder were open due to the compression of the aether in the closed
cylinder.

You could look for inertial effects as well. The aether is what
propagates inertia, so if we could somehow create an aether wind
(perhaps with some kind of magnetic arrangement), we may be able to
show that it is easier or harder to push a mass depending on which
direction you are pushing the mass. There have been some recent
experiments showing that if you spin up a magnet and then stop it, the
second time you spin it up, it takes less energy. Perhaps this shows
that the aether can be made to spin using magnets and that it is easier
to spin it up the second time because the aether is already in motion.
There are also some very recent experiments using only gyroscopes that
appear to show that space somehow has a memory of whether the gyro was
recently spun. These types of experiments could definitely point to an
aether.

We could also look for it directly in particle accelerators. If we
frame collisions in the frame of reference where there is not only the
colliding particles, but also an interaction of the aether, we would
predict that some of the particles being emitted, come from the aether.
Maybe this is the source of the random spray of hadrons we see in
experiments. It would be a matter of re-examing the experiments for
evidence.


| Quarks do not exist.

shrug, nothing to say


| Dark matter and dark energy are gravitationally associated.

Bright green flying elephants and black holes are emotionally associated.
(What ****ing dark matter?)


Probably the best evidence to date is a mapping of the dark matter
using telescopes. Don't ask me how they did it, but they produced some
kind of map showing it congregates around galaxies. The association
that I placed between dark matter and dark energy are directly related
unlike elephants and black holes. If you could draw an unbroken line
between the elephant and black holes, that would be impressive - but
that isn't what I did. Dark matter is gravitationally attracted aether
and dark energy is not caused by universe expansion, but is caused by
the aether clumping together which forces the lighter galaxies into the
bubbles we see in the universe structure. Can't get much more direct
and simple than that. The whole thing can be explained in a single
sentence that an elementary student could understand.



| The magnetic lines of force are defined in the wrong direction.

Who gives a ****?


Granted, it doens't make much of a difference which way to define it
mathematically - it all produces the same results, but you could say
the same thing about saying that the Earth is the center of the
universe and calculating that everything moves around it. Sure it could
work out mathematically, but in a real sense, it is totally wrong when
compared to reality. So it is totally wrong to think the magnetic lines
of force actually run from pole to pole. Based on how electron react to
the field, they wrap around the axis of the poles instead and things
are much easier to understand.


| Redshift is an effect caused by distance only.

Correct.

| The big bang didn't need to happen to explain the CMBR

It didn't happen anyway.


Yeah, the big bang and redshift is a crock!



|
| Now, I've noticed that the internet usenets exist on the principle -
| 'If you can't say anything to refute, don't say anything at all". I
| see very little in the way of collaboration on the sci.physics group. I
| think it would be OK to encourage people every once in a while when
| they're not totally crazy.
|
| All of the papers I have recently published on the sci.physics news
| groups have opened to virtual silence - which could mean a couple of
| things - either
|
| 1. You are in total agreement and have nothing to say against it and
| are in stunned silence - which I find bloody unlikely
| 2. You're not reading any of my posts
| 3. Maybe you're just sick of me
|
| In any case, some comments please ....

Put up your dukes, then. Let's see what you are capable of.
Androcles.


Whoo-hoo we're having fun now!

  #2  
Old April 13th 06, 08:09 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dark matter and dark energy are caused by only gravity and the boyancy effect


wrote in message oups.com...
|
| Hexenmeister wrote:
| wrote in message oups.com...
| | Bill, you can do better than that!
| |
| | What about the rest of you, PD, Wormley, Eric, Timo and the rest --
| | it's no fun if you don't come out and play!
| |
| | Now I should have just loaded you guys up with all the ammo you need by
| | refuting several major scientific dogmas:
| |
| | The aether exists.
|
| Prove it, idiot.
|
| Maybe a better question for you is - prove that it doesn't exist!

I will if you can prove bright green flying elephants do not exist.



| The
| MMX experiment by itself didn't rule out the aether.

Yes it did.
http://tinyurl.com/h2g7z


| It only showed
| that it isn't moving at Earth's orbital speed. A great many things -
| like how EM travels, how atoms are arranged, magnetic force, atomic
| spectra, time dialation, inertia, what is dark matter and what causes
| dark energy can be simply explained in terms of an aether. See my TOE
| at:
|
| http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html

No. I'm not interested in your wild and crazy pet theories.

|
| Things usually cannot be absolutely proved, however, just the fact that
| many things can be explained in terms of an aether is evidence that it
| may be true.


| It would be best to experimentally prove the aether exists.

Do it then. shrug

| Since MMX
| type experiments are not convincing, I would suggest we try to find
| compression effects.

Do it then. Don't involve me, though.

Even if the aether flows through almost anything
| as if it wasn't there, I would imagine there should be some resistance.
| So if you take a closed evacuated cylinder and fire a projectile to the
| closed end, you might find it puts up more resistance than if the
| cylinder were open due to the compression of the aether in the closed
| cylinder.
|
| You could look for inertial effects as well.

No I can't. I'm not interested. You've gone for 'it could' to ' to
'we' to 'you'. Forget it, you claim it, you prove it. I'm innocent until
proven guilty.


|The aether is what
| propagates inertia, so if we could somehow create an aether wind
| (perhaps with some kind of magnetic arrangement), we may be able to
| show that it is easier or harder to push a mass depending on which
| direction you are pushing the mass. There have been some recent
| experiments showing that if you spin up a magnet and then stop it, the
| second time you spin it up, it takes less energy. Perhaps this shows
| that the aether can be made to spin using magnets and that it is easier
| to spin it up the second time because the aether is already in motion.
| There are also some very recent experiments using only gyroscopes that
| appear to show that space somehow has a memory of whether the gyro was
| recently spun. These types of experiments could definitely point to an
| aether.

Yada yada yada.
I said PROVE it exists.

|
| We could also look for it directly in particle accelerators.

No WE cannot. You prove it, leave me out of it.


If we
| frame collisions in the frame of reference where there is not only the
| colliding particles, but also an interaction of the aether, we would
| predict that some of the particles being emitted, come from the aether.
| Maybe this is the source of the random spray of hadrons we see in
| experiments. It would be a matter of re-examing the experiments for
| evidence.

Yada yada tada...
Produce the EVIDENCE, not your maybes.


|
| | Quarks do not exist.
|
| shrug, nothing to say
|
|
| | Dark matter and dark energy are gravitationally associated.
|
| Bright green flying elephants and black holes are emotionally associated.
| (What ****ing dark matter?)
|
| Probably the best evidence to date is a mapping of the dark matter
| using telescopes. Don't ask me how they did it,

Who the **** is "they"?



but they produced some
| kind of map showing it congregates around galaxies. The association
| that I placed between dark matter and dark energy are directly related
| unlike elephants and black holes. If you could draw an unbroken line
| between the elephant and black holes, that would be impressive - but
| that isn't what I did. Dark matter is gravitationally attracted aether
| and dark energy is not caused by universe expansion, but is caused by
| the aether clumping together which forces the lighter galaxies into the
| bubbles we see in the universe structure. Can't get much more direct
| and simple than that. The whole thing can be explained in a single
| sentence that an elementary student could understand.
|
|
|
| | The magnetic lines of force are defined in the wrong direction.
|
| Who gives a ****?
|
| Granted, it doens't make much of a difference which way to define it
| mathematically - it all produces the same results, but you could say
| the same thing about saying that the Earth is the center of the
| universe and calculating that everything moves around it. Sure it could
| work out mathematically, but in a real sense, it is totally wrong when
| compared to reality. So it is totally wrong to think the magnetic lines
| of force actually run from pole to pole. Based on how electron react to
| the field, they wrap around the axis of the poles instead and things
| are much easier to understand.

Who gives a ****?

|
|
| | Redshift is an effect caused by distance only.
|
| Correct.
|
| | The big bang didn't need to happen to explain the CMBR
|
| It didn't happen anyway.
|
|
| Yeah, the big bang and redshift is a crock!

I didn't say redshift was a crock.
I agreed that redshift is an effect caused by distance only.


|
|
|
| |
| | Now, I've noticed that the internet usenets exist on the principle -
| | 'If you can't say anything to refute, don't say anything at all". I
| | see very little in the way of collaboration on the sci.physics group. I
| | think it would be OK to encourage people every once in a while when
| | they're not totally crazy.
| |
| | All of the papers I have recently published on the sci.physics news
| | groups have opened to virtual silence - which could mean a couple of
| | things - either
| |
| | 1. You are in total agreement and have nothing to say against it and
| | are in stunned silence - which I find bloody unlikely
| | 2. You're not reading any of my posts
| | 3. Maybe you're just sick of me
| |
| | In any case, some comments please ....
|
| Put up your dukes, then. Let's see what you are capable of.
| Androcles.
|
| Whoo-hoo we're having fun now!

Ok, well, produce the evidence (you have until I get sick of you to try).
Androcles.




  #3  
Old April 13th 06, 08:42 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dark matter and dark energy are caused by only gravity and the boyancy effect


wrote:

Probably the best evidence to date is a mapping of the dark matter
using telescopes. Don't ask me how they did it, but they produced some
kind of map showing it congregates around galaxies.


If you don't understand how they did it, how could you even begin to
produce a theory to replace it?

  #4  
Old April 16th 06, 06:40 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dark matter and dark energy are caused by only gravity and the boyancy effect

In message .com,
writes

So it is totally wrong to think the magnetic lines of force actually
run from pole to pole. Based on how electron react to the field, they
wrap around the axis of the poles instead and things are much easier to
understand.


Why don't iron filings know this?

--
ralph
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.