New Math does away with Dark Matter!

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

On Dec 4, 7:22*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
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 believe in looking into the past.

On Dec 4, 6:23Â*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

"We have no freaking idea of exactly what dark matter is, but we do know
that there's a lot of it – estimates of its percentage of the total
matter in the universe hover around the mid-to-high 90s. Nor, for that
matter (no pun intended), do we yet have an inkling of the identity of
its compatriot, dark energy, the force that's causing the expansion of
the universe to accelerate".

See:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10...ravitational_l....

Â* Â* Â* _________________

We know 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."

On 12/4/11 7:30 PM, John Gogo wrote:
On Dec 4, 7:22 pm, Sam wrote:
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 believe in looking into the past.

Everybody you look at--you're seeing them in the past--about
one nanosecond per foot.

On Dec 4, 7:30*pm, John Gogo wrote:
On Dec 4, 7:22*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

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 believe in looking into the past.

There are four models for observing for the single observer-and as we
progress- each stage becomes more difficult to perform:

One-way, one-clock which is the act of seeing and has been the
prevalent form of visual measure since the beginning of time and still
has a major foothold in physics measure- I believe that spectroscopic
and black body measures are one-way, one-clock measures because their
science is not based on traveling phenomena.

Two-way, one-clock measure was accomplished around 1850, with Fizeau.s
toothed-wheel experiment. Never before in history, was this
accomplished, until Fizeau managed to have an instrument sophisticated
enough to measure the stimulus of light. The half-silvered mirrored
surface, the distant mirror, the returned beam fed through the toothed-
wheel- this the work of advantage of mankind. Finally we were able to
measure light- put it into a measurable quantity.

Now, one-way, two-clock is another animal altogether. Since each
successive step in the four model process becomes more difficult to
perform- we must discover that- by virtue of adding an additional
clock, coupled with the fact that, in the past we have been accustomed
to measuring two-way, one clock events. The situation of measuing one-
way, two-clock measures, all at once, seems foreign and unfamiliar.

We do not regain this familiarity until the thought experiments of
Einstein's two-way, two -clock relativity are brought to light- which,
difficulty-wise- should be greater than one-way, two-clock, which has
yet to be established.

On Dec 4, 7:45*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 12/4/11 7:30 PM, John Gogo wrote:

On Dec 4, 7:22 pm, Sam *wrote:
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 believe in looking into the past.

* *Everybody you look at--you're seeing them in the past--about
* *one nanosecond per foot.

There is a fundamental delay- but this delay is based on the observer-
not the stimulus.

On 12/4/11 8:07 PM, John Gogo wrote:
On Dec 4, 7:45 pm, Sam wrote:
On 12/4/11 7:30 PM, John Gogo wrote:

On Dec 4, 7:22 pm, Sam wrote:
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 believe in looking into the past.

Everybody you look at--you're seeing them in the past--about
one nanosecond per foot.

There is a fundamental delay- but this delay is based on the observer-
not the stimulus.

The delay is due to the finite speed of light.

"John Gogo" wrote in message
...
On Dec 4, 7:45 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 12/4/11 7:30 PM, John Gogo wrote:

On Dec 4, 7:22 pm, Sam wrote:
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 believe in looking into the past.

Everybody you look at--you're seeing them in the past--about
one nanosecond per foot.

There is a fundamental delay- but this delay is based on the observer-
not the stimulus.

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

This fundamental delay is based on 'c', not any observer. The observer is
either the beneficiary or the victim.

GLB

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

On Dec 4, 2:54*pm, eric gisse wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote :

Astronomy Without A Telescope – Could Dark Matter Not Matter?
http://www.universetoday.com/91520/a...lescope-could-
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?

Gravity is not a lense.

Mitch Raemsch; the prize

On Dec 4, 7:57*pm, John Gogo wrote:
On Dec 4, 7:30*pm, John Gogo wrote:

On Dec 4, 7:22*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

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 believe in looking into the past.

There are four models for observing for the single observer-and as we
progress- each stage becomes more difficult to perform:

One-way, one-clock which is the act of seeing and has been the
prevalent form of visual measure since the beginning of time and still
has a major foothold in physics measure- I believe that spectroscopic
and black body measures are one-way, one-clock measures because their
science is not based on traveling phenomena.

Two-way, one-clock measure was accomplished around 1850, with Fizeau.s
toothed-wheel experiment. *Never before in history, was this
accomplished, until Fizeau managed to have an instrument sophisticated
enough to measure the stimulus of light. *The half-silvered mirrored
surface, the distant mirror, the returned beam fed through the toothed-
wheel- this the work of advantage of mankind. *Finally we were able to
measure light- put it into a measurable quantity.

Now, one-way, two-clock is another animal altogether. *Since each
successive step in the four model process becomes more difficult to
perform- we must discover that- by virtue of adding an additional
clock, coupled with the fact that, in the past we have been accustomed
to measuring two-way, one clock events. *The situation of measuing one-
way, two-clock measures, all at once, seems foreign and unfamiliar.

We do not regain this familiarity until the thought experiments of
Einstein's two-way, two -clock relativity are brought to light- which,
difficulty-wise- should be greater than one-way, two-clock, which has
yet to be established.

So, everything prior to 1850- for the most part-is a one-way, one-
clock measure including Bradley's measure of aberration and Roemer's
measure of Jupiter's satellites.