New Math does away with Dark Matter!

7 email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets .com wrote in
:

eric gisse wrote:

Yousuf Khan wrote in
:

Astronomy Without A Telescope � Could Dark Matter Not Matter?
http://www.universetoday.com/91520/a...t-a-telescope-
coul
d- dark-matter-not-matter/ and,
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.5793v1

"This is the contemporary consensus view of how galaxies work �
and a key component of the current standard model of the cosmology
of the universe. But Carati has come along with a seemingly
implausible idea that the rotational curves of spiral galaxies could
be explained by the gravitational influence of faraway matter,
without needing to appeal to dark matter at all."


Zero mention of gravitational lensing or large scale issues like the
CMB and whatnot. Why do people keep thinking rotation curves are the
only evidence?


I have an answer for that that I will try to post soon - and its even
more stunning derivation from this:


Eliminate singularities, inflation, dark matter, dark energy and dark
flow - posted sci.physics 6-11-2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
---

1. Singularities in black holes don't exist because at the center of
the
black hole is near zero gravity and this would cause the material
to pull back leaving a bubble.

That's nonsense. Really, it is. General relativity is explicit in this.


That gets rid of the ONLY known singularity in the present
universe.

Unless you count other black holes.

[snip rest]

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
On 12/4/11 7:12 PM, G. L. Bradford wrote:
Time recedes into past, and distant past, and even more distant past, in
straight lines, spokes, everywhere out from every point such as the
Earth. "Everywhere out" meaning like onion skin thin 2-dimensional
universe surfaces in enlarging spheres...

You are right that as we look out, we are looking into the past
when the universe was much smaller, hotter and denser. So perhaps
every line converges to the big bang (a very small region). :-o


====================

I don't think you meant "converges" the way I take it to mean (as you well
know), but I like it that you used present tense rather than past tense. The
past tense (your usual preference and the strictly 1-dimensional picture you
probably must teach), though, is just as true, exactly as true, as the
present / future tense *constant* I prefer. Both being true, as far as I'm
concerned, it [is] a constant, the constant, as I see it to be, of the
kernel Planck bubble -- spherically out from another constant, the constant
of the 'Big Crunch' point of infinity (Stephen Hawking's envisioned black
hole on the other side, that is to say within, that singular duality of
Planck bubble / Big Bang sphere) -- you found my description of so "ILLUCID"
when I crammed together into a single short response what I should have
worked toward gradually in many responses (gradually fleshing out).

And of course, in my view, out from that *inner* sphere, an *outer* sphere
of infinite Universe....a spherical outer surface-shell of infinitely flat
Universe (infinitely layered, the same flat expansiveness of surface
repeating itself to infinity in-depth, every layer of an infinity of layers
'infinitely flat'). Surely you, Sam, can picture an infinitely flat surfaced
sphere, a surface that though it doesn't go anywhere it is an infinitely
broad / infinitely expansive Universe....up / out from that finitely
ballooning, voluminous, inner sphere with its orders and more orders of
magnitude, itself (as I see it, and as I saw that Stephen Hawking envisioned
it) up / out from the constant of a "black hole" singularity (my
interpretation: the constant of the 'Big Crunch' point of infinity). Thus
two infinities (one infinity infinitely broad, infinitely 2-dimensionally
flat / one infinity infinitely 0-point, infinitely 1-dimensionally -string
like- deep) bookending outside and inside an [expansive universe (@) - | /
| - (*) contractive universe] finite.

Do you note the dimensions (2|0 // 0|1) of the two infinites?

If Stephen Hawking can illustrate the Universe as a 1-dimensional constant
of inflationary / deflationary sphere that at the far right hemispherical
side of it is a point (constant) of Big Bang, and that at the far left
hemispherical side of it is a point (constant) of Big Crunch, then I can go
him one far better as to the picture. One far better as to
multi-dimensionality, *inclusiveness*, and constancy.

"Converges". Thanks much, Sam, for using it rather than 'converged'
(whether you did so intentionally or not).

GLB

=======================

On 12/4/2011 6:23 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
I wouldn't get too exited as there is increasing evidence for dark
matter from many independent observations.

snip

Oh that's cute, Wormley has found a new standard template to post. That
brings his original thought quotient upto 1 every two years, mainly used
in compiling a new list of weblinks.

Yousuf Khan

Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Dec 4, 9:59*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 12/4/2011 6:23 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:

I wouldn't get too exited as there is increasing
evidence for dark matter from many independent
observations.

* * * * snip

Oh that's cute, Wormley has found a new standard
template to post. That brings his original thought
quotient upto 1 every two years, mainly used
in compiling a new list of weblinks.

Well, Dark Matter clearly is not WIMPs. It isn't entirely neutrinos.
So that leaves either "math tricks", "magic fairy dust" that is not
part of the Standard Model, or a fifth force that kicks in over a
certain scale.

With the addition of the sterile neutrino, there may be a good
candidate for "magic fairy dust".

That Sam equates "really good evidence for Dark Matter" (we already
have galaxies and galaxies of evidence), for knowing what Dark Matter
is, is just what gets the cranks... cranked up.

At least this last attempt isn't MOND... (I solved it using Newton's
Gravitation, because I understand that!).

I wonder if "speed of gravity" can be combed out of this attempt?

David A. Smith

On Dec 5, 9:36Â*am, dlzc wrote:
Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Dec 4, 9:59Â*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:

On 12/4/2011 6:23 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:

I wouldn't get too exited as there is increasing
evidence for dark matter from many independent
observations.

Â* Â* Â* Â* snip

Oh that's cute, Wormley has found a new standard
template to post. Â*That brings his original thought
quotient upto 1 every two years, mainly used
in compiling a new list of weblinks.

Well, Dark Matter clearly is not WIMPs. Â*It isn't entirely neutrinos..
So that leaves either "math tricks", "magic fairy dust" that is not
part of the Standard Model, or a fifth force that kicks in over a
certain scale.

With the addition of the sterile neutrino, there may be a good
candidate for "magic fairy dust".

That Sam equates "really good evidence for Dark Matter" (we already
have galaxies and galaxies of evidence), for knowing what Dark Matter
is, is just what gets the cranks... cranked up.

At least this last attempt isn't MOND... (I solved it using Newton's
Gravitation, because I understand that!).

I wonder if "speed of gravity" can be combed out of this attempt?

David A. Smith

Dark matter is aether.

The following recent articles describe dark matter as aether.

'Quantum aether and an invariant Planck scale'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3753

"this version of aether may have some bearing on the abundance of Dark
Matter and Dark Energy in our universe."

"mass of the aether"

'Scalars, Vectors and Tensors from Metric-Affine Gravity'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.5168

"the model obtained here gets closer to the aether theory of , which
is shown therein to be an alternative to the cold dark matter."

'Unified model for dark matter and quintessence'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0610135

"Superfluid dark matter is reminiscent of the aether and modeling the
universe using superfluid aether is compatible."

'Vainshtein mechanism in Gauss-Bonnet gravity and Galileon aether'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.1892

"the perturbations of the scalar field do not propagate in the
Minkowski space-time but rather in some form of �aether� because of
the presence of the background field"

'Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old
Cosmological Constant Problem'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3955

"One proposal to address this puzzle at the semi-classical level is to
decouple quantum vacuum from space-time geometry via a modification of
gravity that includes an incompressible fluid, known as Gravitational
Aether."

'From Analogue Models to Gravitating Vacuum'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.1155

The following article describes aether as a real substance.

"The aether of the 21-st century is the quantum vacuum, which is a new
form of matter. This is the real substance"
'The aether-modified gravity and the G ̈del metric'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.5654v2

The following article describes gravity as pressure exerted by aether
toward matter.

"As for the pressure, it is equal to p = 53−αg,6a2 so, it is positive
if αg 3 which is the weaker condition than the previous one. One
notes that the results corresponding to the usual gravity are easily
recovered. Also, it is easy to see that the interval αg 15
corresponds to the usual matter."

dlzc wrote in news:4b7edf6e-9314-453b-bc19-fadb1d5540c1
@y18g2000yqy.googlegroups.com:

Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Dec 4, 9:59*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 12/4/2011 6:23 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:

I wouldn't get too exited as there is increasing
evidence for dark matter from many independent
observations.

* * * * snip

Oh that's cute, Wormley has found a new standard
template to post. That brings his original thought
quotient upto 1 every two years, mainly used
in compiling a new list of weblinks.

Well, Dark Matter clearly is not WIMPs. It isn't entirely neutrinos.
So that leaves either "math tricks", "magic fairy dust" that is not
part of the Standard Model, or a fifth force that kicks in over a
certain scale.

With the addition of the sterile neutrino, there may be a good
candidate for "magic fairy dust".

A light sterile neutrino would do it. Something in the neighborhood of
10 eV.


That Sam equates "really good evidence for Dark Matter" (we already
have galaxies and galaxies of evidence), for knowing what Dark Matter
is, is just what gets the cranks... cranked up.

At least this last attempt isn't MOND... (I solved it using Newton's
Gravitation, because I understand that!).

I wonder if "speed of gravity" can be combed out of this attempt?

David A. Smith

On Dec 5, 11:44*am, eric gisse wrote:
dlzc wrote in news:4b7edf6e-9314-453b-bc19-fadb1d5540c1
@y18g2000yqy.googlegroups.com:





Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Dec 4, 9:59 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 12/4/2011 6:23 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:

I wouldn't get too exited as there is increasing
evidence for dark matter from many independent
observations.

snip

Oh that's cute, Wormley has found a new standard
template to post. *That brings his original thought
quotient upto 1 every two years, mainly used
in compiling a new list of weblinks.

Well, Dark Matter clearly is not WIMPs. *It isn't entirely neutrinos.
So that leaves either "math tricks", "magic fairy dust" that is not
part of the Standard Model, or a fifth force that kicks in over a
certain scale.

With the addition of the sterile neutrino, there may be a good
candidate for "magic fairy dust".

A light sterile neutrino would do it. Something in the neighborhood of
10 eV.





That Sam equates "really good evidence for Dark Matter" (we already
have galaxies and galaxies of evidence), for knowing what Dark Matter
is, is just what gets the cranks... cranked up.

At least this last attempt isn't MOND... (I solved it using Newton's
Gravitation, because I understand that!).

I wonder if "speed of gravity" can be combed out of this attempt?

David A. Smith- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Neutrino gravity would be evenly distributed and could not pull only
from ahead for the stars faster.

Mitch Raemsch; the prize

On Dec 4, 1:28*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Astronomy Without A Telescope – Could Dark Matter Not Matter?http://www..universetoday.com/91520/...telescope-coul...
and,http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.5793v1

"This is the contemporary consensus view of how galaxies work – and a
key component of the current standard model of the cosmology of the
universe. But Carati has come along with a seemingly implausible idea
that the rotational curves of spiral galaxies could be explained by the
gravitational influence of faraway matter, without needing to appeal to
dark matter at all."

The rationale for the effect of distant masses
can be demonstrated in the relationship between
space telescope and Earth.
http://www.sr.bham.ac.uk/xmm/moments3.html
Telescope and Earth alternate in passing each
other in their free fall toward the distant body
the Sun, Earth and Sun alternate in passing
each other in their fall toward Galactic Center,
Stars and galactic center alternate in passing
each other in their fall towards more massive
attractor. The alternation in passing produces
the visual of rotation, which trapped Newton,
because he was not aware that stars and
accompanying planets move with the same
galactic speeds. John Curtis

On Dec 8, 9:01*am, John Curtis wrote:
On Dec 4, 1:28*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote: Astronomy Without A Telescope – Could Dark Matter Not Matter?http://www.universetoday.com/91520/a...telescope-coul...
and,http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.5793v1

"This is the contemporary consensus view of how galaxies work – and a
key component of the current standard model of the cosmology of the
universe. But Carati has come along with a seemingly implausible idea
that the rotational curves of spiral galaxies could be explained by the
gravitational influence of faraway matter, without needing to appeal to
dark matter at all."

The rationale for the effect of distant masses
can be demonstrated in the relationship between
space telescope and Earth.http://www.sr.bham.ac.uk/xmm/moments3.html
Telescope and Earth alternate in passing each
other in their free fall toward the distant body
the Sun, *Earth and Sun alternate in passing
each other in their fall toward Galactic Center,
Stars and galactic center alternate in passing
each other in their fall towards more massive
attractor. The alternation in passing produces
the visual of rotation, which trapped Newton,
because he was not aware that stars and
accompanying planets move with the same
galactic speeds. *John Curtis

Dark matter gravity would pull stars outward and slow them down when
from behind. This would cancel a speed up from ahead.

Mitch Raemsch; the prize