A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Article: Physicists unbowed as fail to detect dark matter



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 11th 04, 06:09 AM
Greysky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old May 11th 04, 06:30 AM
N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old May 11th 04, 12:53 PM
Dave
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old May 11th 04, 02:53 PM
Greysky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old May 11th 04, 02:57 PM
Robert J. Kolker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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  
Old May 11th 04, 03:19 PM
N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old May 11th 04, 11:25 PM
Bill Hobba
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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

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

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:47 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.