|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Article: Physicists unbowed as fail to detect dark matter
"Robert Karl Stonjek" wrote in message ... Particle no-show pans former find Physicists unbowed as fail to detect dark matter. 6 May 2004 GEOFF BRUMFIEL The most powerful search yet for the Universe's missing matter has come up empty handed, contradicting an earlier study that claimed to have seen new particles. The fact or non fact of so called 'Dark Matter' stems directly from what is the nature of gravity and how it couples to matter. As of now, science has most of it wrong, so there will be no dark matter found, neither will there be found artifacts of dark matter. A horrible conceptual error occured in the late1970's concerning the nature of how gravity operates on and within mass-energy systems that has led to all the nonsense we see now. We began to see the membraneous nature of mass' filamentary structure in sky surveys. Then there needed to be an explanation as to why the obvious mass of observed galactic structures did not agree with their rotation, if we know gravity to be a conserved force. There is a simple explanation, perhaps too simple, which is why A. Held didn't want to waste a page in General Relativity and Gravitation giving a quick and easy explanation of everything we are seeing now concerning the large scale structure of the universe back in 1988. So now we have a lot of silly ideas and millions of wasted man-hours devoted to sterile mathematical soluions to a problem that doesn't exist. Dark matter particles, like proton decay, will never be observed. The edifice of modern cosmology that rests on these related predictions is currently our house of cards built on unstable sand. The true answer is so simple even a high school student could understand it, which is why no one gives a rats ass for the 'truth'. For those that disagree with my pessemistic conclusion concerning truth, I offer one simple concept: /I(m) = G(m)/. And an isea to ponder: If there is no such thing as proton decay, then baryon number is a true conserved quantity - so where is all the antimatter that still must exist? Greysky www.allocations.cc Learn how to build a FTL radio. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Greysky:
"Greysky" wrote in message . com... .... For those that disagree with my pessemistic conclusion concerning truth, I offer one simple concept: /I(m) = G(m)/. And an isea to ponder: If there is no such thing as proton decay, then baryon number is a true conserved quantity - so where is all the antimatter that still must exist? In our anti-Universe. Down the black hole into the Big Bang of our sub-Universe, which is mostly anti-matter. Now of course it has black holes, and they open up to our Big Bang. Since we are its anti-matter. Something about separating light from darkness comes to mind... David A. Smith |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Greysky wrote:
"Robert Karl Stonjek" wrote in message ... Particle no-show pans former find Physicists unbowed as fail to detect dark matter. 6 May 2004 GEOFF BRUMFIEL The most powerful search yet for the Universe's missing matter has come up empty handed, contradicting an earlier study that claimed to have seen new particles. The fact or non fact of so called 'Dark Matter' stems directly from what is the nature of gravity and how it couples to matter. As of now, science has most of it wrong, so there will be no dark matter found, neither will there be found artifacts of dark matter. A horrible conceptual error occured in the late1970's concerning the nature of how gravity operates on and within mass-energy systems that has led to all the nonsense we see now. Any you've succeeded where the rest of science has failed for the last however long because? DaveL |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave" wrote in message ... Greysky wrote: "Robert Karl Stonjek" wrote in message ... Particle no-show pans former find Physicists unbowed as fail to detect dark matter. 6 May 2004 GEOFF BRUMFIEL The most powerful search yet for the Universe's missing matter has come up empty handed, contradicting an earlier study that claimed to have seen new particles. The fact or non fact of so called 'Dark Matter' stems directly from what is the nature of gravity and how it couples to matter. As of now, science has most of it wrong, so there will be no dark matter found, neither will there be found artifacts of dark matter. A horrible conceptual error occured in the late1970's concerning the nature of how gravity operates on and within mass-energy systems that has led to all the nonsense we see now. Any you've succeeded where the rest of science has failed for the last however long because? ....because god did not make a very complicated universe. From simple precepts, many conclusions can be reached - back then the common knowledge was baryon number is not conerved. As proton decay was not observed, the theories became more and more outlandish and cosmology became sillier and sillier. To get grounded once more, try as a exercise to think of the implications of the simple modification to the equivalecne principal I gave. What happens if you stick it in absolute magnitude signs? Greysky www.allocations.cc Learn how to build a FTL radio. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Greysky wrote: ...because god did not make a very complicated universe. From simple precepts, many conclusions can be reached - back then the common knowledge was baryon number is not conerved. As proton decay was not observed, the theories became more and more outlandish and cosmology became sillier and sillier. To get grounded once more, try as a exercise to think of the implications of the simple modification to the equivalecne principal I gave. What happens if you stick it in absolute magnitude signs? The universe is complicated. It is also not beautiful. The idea that physics has to be based on something simple and beautiful is a conceit. Truth is not Beauty. Beauty is not Truth and the world, -as it is- is messy and ugly. Bob Kolker |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Robert J. Kolker:
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message news:tZ4oc.26075$z06.4320254@attbi_s01... Greysky wrote: ...because god did not make a very complicated universe. From simple precepts, many conclusions can be reached - back then the common knowledge was baryon number is not conerved. As proton decay was not observed, the theories became more and more outlandish and cosmology became sillier and sillier. To get grounded once more, try as a exercise to think of the implications of the simple modification to the equivalecne principal I gave. What happens if you stick it in absolute magnitude signs? The universe is complicated. It is also not beautiful. The idea that physics has to be based on something simple and beautiful is a conceit. Truth is not Beauty. Beauty is not Truth and the world, -as it is- is messy and ugly. I would disagree with part of this, Robert. When you dissect beauty, you do not find beauty within. Complexity is in the observation, in drawing a host of simple interactions, to a single theory held in the head. Otherwise, you are still a grouch! Keep up the good work. David A. Smith |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message news:tZ4oc.26075$z06.4320254@attbi_s01... Greysky wrote: ...because god did not make a very complicated universe. From simple precepts, many conclusions can be reached - back then the common knowledge was baryon number is not conerved. As proton decay was not observed, the theories became more and more outlandish and cosmology became sillier and sillier. To get grounded once more, try as a exercise to think of the implications of the simple modification to the equivalecne principal I gave. What happens if you stick it in absolute magnitude signs? The universe is complicated. It is also not beautiful. The idea that physics has to be based on something simple and beautiful is a conceit. Truth is not Beauty. Beauty is not Truth and the world, -as it is- is messy and ugly. Do not quite agree with you Bob. Maxwell's equations for example are a lot simpler than the large array of eltormagnetic phenomena it explains. And we now know that even those can be explained by local gauge symmetry. It would be rather strange that nature chose to be beautiful and elegant in some places and not in others. But that does not imply we should only concern ourselves with theories that are like that - we should take our hypothesis from clues wherever we find them. Thanks Bill |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dark Matter and Dark Energy: One and the Same? | LenderBroker | Amateur Astronomy | 4 | July 14th 04 01:45 AM |
Co-location of normal matter and dark matter | Richard Schumacher | Astronomy Misc | 6 | June 9th 04 12:18 AM |
Where is the Dark Matter? | Joseph Lazio | Astronomy Misc | 4 | November 28th 03 09:35 PM |
Galaxies without dark matter halos? | Ed Keane III | Research | 10 | August 8th 03 10:40 AM |