What would be the impact on astronomy and cosmology if the speed of light was a dependent variable and the independent variable was the energy density of dark matter?

I don't believe in Dark Matter, to me it's just a sign that we have made some seriously f'd up mistakes and we're trying to patch it up so Physicists don't lose their tenure and have to get a real job.

;)

I haven't been able to get a somewhat simple answer on"why" there needs to be dark matter and dark energy(through google). At least nothing I could comprehend. Could anyone give a comparison or something to make this a bit easier to wrap my brain around?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_problem

There are other indications of dark matter but this is the clearest to me.

I do believe in Dark Matter, but is variably differential to the properties that we assume.

Of course, this is speculation. And at this time, any speculation to do with dark matter, are all invariant.

Elsewhere we talked about prior conditions from which matter emerges. When I describe dark matter I am talking about the kind of mass that has not completed the journey into the formation of particles that appear in the particle model of particle theory.

Isn't it a simple prediction to come to, that where matter exists in great quantities, i.e. galaxies for example, that pre-stage mass would have taken shape and would have remained in gravitational association with galactic structure that consists of particles that we CAN detect?

I did however, pardon me, report on the detection of the Axion. It is now presumed we have a standard model + the dark matter candidate, the Axion particle.

Must we google things ourselves. Where is a good link? Do you know how to embed a link in a post. For example you can use [ url=] [/url]

Like this. The Axion (http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~axion/Welcome.html) is a dark matter candidate.

Personally I like the idea I use in my QWC thread, Mass *has* gravity (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=82060) where pre-particles form from the energy background :) before the fundamental particles. The formation of fundamental particles leave an unused population of these pre-particles that do exert and feel gravity and so they hang around massive structure like galaxies.

I'm sorry. In the rare moments, i do link. Again, i apologise. I just accept that peeps would know i wouldn't lie about it.

Again, i will say, that the Axion particle is a candidate. I assume this means dark matter cannot exist in a model including that very particle... ??

It may require other dark matter particles, otherwise. But it is undeniably a good turn for dark matter itself.

Thanks for mentioning the Axion. Now if you would, please explain what you mean here:

I assume this means dark matter cannot exist in a model including that very particle... ??

Hi,

I say this, because there must be an existing set of particles alongside the Axion. This is a particle that can travel through solid objects.

However, the appearance of this unique particle has not revived an absolute condition for dark matter itself. Thergo, and answering your question, the dark matter candidate, may not be an actual dark matter itself.

The speed of light seems to be dependant on space itself.

I think we need to decide on what DM is rather than trying to make it fit a wish list.

Maybe we should start with a definition of space itself.

Some think of it as the "fabric of spacetime". To some space could be empty and is just a place where things happen. Most agree that space seems to be something other that an perfect void.

I like to think of space as infinite and filled infinitely with energy density that is characterized by continual energy density fluctuations. There are no voids.

In my view DM is a characteristic of energy density. The average universal energy density is high enough to produce energy density fluctuations that are capable of forming matter, and dark matter is that part of the energy background that has no charge and therefore doesn't stand out to be detected. It is a stage of prematter formation that exists where the energy density is above the equilibrium threshold but below the lower matter formation threshold.

It turns out however, there is really no such thing as ''empty spacetime.''

Even the smallest part of any spacetime unit, is filled with either a potential energy or is bubbling with a real physical energy.

I guess you are right since the volume of spacetime is implied to be zero at the instant of the big bang so everything was "potential" at that point. Correct me if you don't agree, but most BBT theorists will just say that it had volume after the first instant and will not say it was ever infinitely small and infinitely dense.

I guess you are right since the volume of spacetime is implied to be zero at the instant of the big bang so everything was "potential" at that point. Correct me if you don't agree, but most BBT theorists will just say that it had volume after the first instant and will not say it was ever infinitely small and infinitely dense.I stand uncorrected :).

But getting back to the original post, photons are said to be expanding spherical waves (see bottom of page 4) (http://www.cis.rit.edu/class/simg232/lab8-20033-michelson.pdf) as evidenced by the out of phase interference patterns in two slit experiments.

Wouldn't we have to say that the photon's spherical waves would be expanding at the speed of light? Please correct me if this is not a fair conclusion.

A single photon has a definite wavelength according to Planck's equations. If it is interfered with its size and shape changes. I can't see a pair of slits producing an expanding wavefront from light unless they are very close together, are extremely narrow, or they bounce light inside of them and produce a fan of light. Draw the lines. Light from a single pinpoint source passing through two slits without scattering should not intersect itself to produce an interference pattern.

The light passing through the slits is a beam of light from a single source. There is a stream of photons, each with an individual wave front, that each expand spherically from the point origin of the source. By the time the beam reaches the slits, the spherical wave has expanded and part of each single spherical photon wave front passes through each slit.

If the slits are not exactly aligned so that the same photon wave front reaches each slit at exactly the same time and angle, there is interference because the waves are out of phase. Out of phase waves cause the interference patterns.

Here is an interesting link (http://www.atoptics.co.uk/droplets/corform.htm) that uses droplets instead of slits to produce the interference pattern.

My point in that last post was to make a correlation between the rate of expansion of the individual spherical wave fronts and the speed of light which seems obvious but it is a step toward developing the idea in the OP.

I am getting to a premise that the individual photon is actually composed of multiple waves that combine at the source to form a common wave front. If so then the individual photon that appears to be one wave could actually be synchronized multiple waves emitted simultaneously from the source.

That could explain how the energy that is imparted to the photons by the energy level of the source is the determinant of how much energy a photon carries, i.e. higher energy photons would be composed of more individual waves all emitted as continuous beams with each photon packet having the same wave front. That allows for a more fundamental component (lower level of indivisible composition) of the photon and of the source electron that is predicted by Quantum Wave Cosmology.

The electromagnetic nature of the combined wave that makes up each photon would be the same, i.e. electromagnetic radiation displays two traveling-wave vector components that propagate simultaneously. Each of the proposed multiple waves that combine in the individual photon wave front would have their own electrical field and magnetic field components imparted to the photon at the source.

In other words, what we view to be a single photon would be a group of waves emitted together from the source electron. The beam of light would be considered a continuous set of beams, all with a common wave front, where instead of a continuous stream of identical single spherical waves, there is a common wave front of multiple wave packets in each photon.

Since each individual wave expands at the same rate (the speed of light) the combined wave front of each photon would be maintained as it traversed the space between the origin and the destination and would appear as a single photon throughout the journey. The energy level of the source would be reflected by the number of multiple waves that combine in a common wave front to make up what we think of as individual photons.

Certainly as an effect of observation of the photon itself, the spherical wave is disrupted and the wave front is depleted either partially or completely depending on how much of the photon's energy is absorbed by the disruption.

The wave patterns that you can see are composed of many individual photons.

Yes, from a beam of light composed of photons, a stream of photons :).

The stream of photons carry energy imparted to them from the source based on the energy level of the source.

I mentioned Quantum Wave Cosmology predicts that individual photons are packets of waves and the number of individual waves composing each individual photon is determined by the energy level of the source and the change in that energy level associated with the photon emission. I mention this premise because the speed of light and the rate of expansion of the spherical waves that make up photons are the same as the speed of gravity waves that I discuss in QWC.

Multiple waves would be emitted as photons by electrons as determined by the change in energy level of the electron. In QWC the energy of the electron is a function of the energy density, and electron energy density is determined by the number of energy quanta and quantum actions taking place in the electron's space.

So the photon energy is communicated from the electron source based on the number of the electron's quanta involved in the photon emission. The number of quanta involved goes up as the energy level of the electron goes up, but still the photon emission involves only a small portion of the electron's numerous quanta that occupy the electron's space. The rest of the electron's quanta are involved in normal mass and gravity functions.

The interesting twist to this premise in QWC is that the same type of waves that carry electromagnetic energy from electrons in the form of photons, also carry the gravity emanation of the electron. The photon emission is differentiated from the gravity emanation by the special way that photons are emitted, i.e. photon emissions involve jumps down in energy of the electron while gravity emanations involve mass maintenance and containment (see link to pseudoscience thread below).

Under this premise, photons have very minimal mass but can never be considered at rest so the rest mass of a photon is meaningless. The reason that the waves generated by quantum action within electrons which are emitted as photons cause light instead of gravity is the extremely low containment level of the photon emission process vs. the containment of the normal mass/gravity process.

Posts #61 to #64 in the Pseudoscience thread, "Mass *has* gravity" (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=82060&page=4) defines mass and gravity in terms of quanta, quantum action, and containment, FYI.

I will reference this thread in the "Mass *has* gravity" thread when this thread plays out.

I'm posting this thread outside of the Pseudoscience forum in hopes of getting input from members who don't normally frequent the pseudoscience forum. Reasons why the premise in this post is unlikely or not possible based on known science would not be received defensively. However I will defend my position to some degree because it is unlikely that you will have any clue about what I am talking about without some discussion of the QWC (cosmology) presented in the linked Pseudoscience thread.

100 Years of denying the Aether........

Dark Matter...........the ONLY kind we know of.........Neutrinos.

Now, Neutrinos are Non-Baryonic...............when they are "Free Neutrinos"....That means not 'captured as the mass particles that make up the electron/proton.

Those Neutrinos, as "Free Non-baryonic Particles" are ALL of space and all travel at "C", carrying ALL of the EM spectrum, in straightline motion.

Those Neutrinos get captured in the following ways...

1. When a SMBH is forming (Long GRB), that is from two "Branes" colliding.
a. Those neutrinos are left and right spin, and create the electrons/protons
b. GRB afterglow fades, cools and the hydrogen/helium/lithium/deuterium form
2. When star formation begins, the heavier gases are Fused (Not Burned) trapping more
Neutrinos in those processes, releasing Much more energy than the fission process we
have learned how to accomplish. This accounts for all the elements up to Iron.
3. Suoer Nova "Traps" neutrinos for the final accounting of the heavier than Iron
elements.

Now, there should be a very obvious difference (Not the Aether Carrying the EM part) in what I have just shown here than mainstream/Standard Model, that if you/anyone understands what I am saying, should be GLARING...;>)

I don't think "they" are denying the Aether, they are just saying that we can't exactly find any evidence of it.

The aether in Quantum Wave Cosmology is the energy background that fills all space at varying energy density. Energy density variations in the background are called energy density fluctuations and the entire background is therefore made up of energy density fluctuations. These fluctuations are caused and perpetuated by the intersecting and overlapping quantum waves.

Quantum waves are caused by quantum action. Quantum action occurs when the intensity of the energy density fluctuations in the background reaches a level where quantum wave overlaps and intersections contain a particular amount of energy, i.e. a quantum of energy.

Energy in quantum increments stands out from the background because mass is composed of energy in quantum increments. In background conditions that are not intense enough to form quanta and to initiate quantum action, there is no mass.

Dark matter is made up of energy quanta that stand out from the background and that participate in quantum action, but the intensity of the quantum action is too low to form the fundamental particles that we recognize as mass; they are pre-mass particles that don't have electromagnetic characteristics but do exert and feel gravity.

Dark matter is attracted to fundamental particles and matter composed of fundamental particles and so large structure like galaxies have a high density of dark matter in and around them.

The evidence for dark matter is the unexplained gravitational effect observed in the motion of galaxies as they rotate. The explanation of dark matter in QWC is the pre-matter quanta (no electromagnetic charge) that are attracted to and that are in and around galaxies.

RussT, you have said that dark matter is neutrinos and I asked you before, if dark matter is neutrinos, how do they cause the observed but unexplained gravitational effect attributed to dark matter?

I don't think "they" are denying the Aether, they are just saying that we can't exactly find any evidence of it.

Oh, really........They (Mainstream) atre most certainly denying the Aether~!!!


The aether in Quantum Wave Cosmology is the energy background that fills all space at varying energy density.

SEE.........there is the problem, right off the bat!!!

The "background energy" is NOT varying (But I have already said that to you and Reiku and Alpha TOOOOO many times!!!)

The Background Energy is a {"Constant" at the "pit" Black Holes...and I am saying.... SMBH's...Lee Smolin}................Just as I have shown numerous times now, AND have even shown three examples of Prominent names in Astronomy who have found the clues to how it applies.

Now,,,,it is actually very simple!!!

Light travels everywhere in the universe at "c".

Neutrinos travel everywhere in the universe at "c"

The Neutrinos (Free, not 'trapped' as mass in electrons/protons/neutrons) carry the Constant...the Cosmic Microwave "Background" in ALL/Every direction at "C"!!!

Okay, Forget 'where' I am saying they come from, for a moment!!!

The question "What is Space" made of comes up all the time on BAUT, and all forums.

What I just showed, IS the answer to that!!!


What is NOT being realized, by 'everyone', is just how basic the problem is with how Einstein (Lorentz and Maxwell) all developed "The Propagation of Light/photons"!!!

Let me put it this way...

For Gamma Rays, they have an electron and a positron annihilating to sent two light rays in opposite directions, with opposite spin......That may be 'one way' that light propagates, BUT, that is NOT the way Most light propagates!!!

Light/Photons is emitted at the 'source' and is 'carried' by ALL of the Neutrinos going 'through' the source, and so is emitted 'isotropically' in all directions.

That is just the start of what is 'really happening'!!!

RussT, you have said that dark matter is neutrinos and I asked you before, if dark matter is neutrinos, how do they cause the observed but unexplained gravitational effect attributed to dark matter?

And, yes, I can answer this, BUT I am not going to until the rest of this is understood!

I don't think "they" are denying the Aether, they are just saying that we can't exactly find any evidence of it.

Oh, really........They (Mainstream) atre most certainly denying the Aether~!!!


The aether in Quantum Wave Cosmology is the energy background that fills all space at varying energy density.

SEE.........there is the problem, right off the bat!!!

The "background energy" is NOT varying (But I have already said that to you and Reiku and Alpha TOOOOO many times!!!)

The Background Energy is a {"Constant" at the "pit" Black Holes...and I am saying.... SMBH's...Lee Smolin}................Just as I have shown numerous times now, AND have even shown three examples of Prominent names in Astronomy who have found the clues to how it applies.

Now,,,,it is actually very simple!!!

Light travels everywhere in the universe at "c".

Neutrinos travel everywhere in the universe at "c"

The Neutrinos (Free, not 'trapped' as mass in electrons/protons/neutrons) carry the Constant...the Cosmic Microwave "Background" in ALL/Every direction at "C"!!!

Okay, Forget 'where' I am saying they come from, for a moment!!!

The question "What is Space" made of comes up all the time on BAUT, and all forums.

What I just showed, IS the answer to that!!!


What is NOT being realized, by 'everyone', is just how basic the problem is with how Einstein (Lorentz and Maxwell) all developed "The Propagation of Light/photons"!!!

Let me put it this way...

For Gamma Rays, they have an electron and a positron annihilating to sent two light rays in opposite directions, with opposite spin......That may be 'one way' that light propagates, BUT, that is NOT the way Most light propagates!!!

Light/Photons is emitted at the 'source' and is 'carried' by ALL of the Neutrinos going 'through' the source, and so is emitted 'isotropically' in all directions.Neutrinos travel in an almost straight line. If a photon "rides" the neutrinos in all directions, how do you explain the spherical wave structure of photons observed in the two slit experiments? Of course neutrinos would pass through both slits but how do they get out of phase so that they can cause the interference patterns if they are neutrinos going straight?

Photons expand spherically when going through the slits and getting out of phase is easy unless the angle to each slit is perfectly equal.

That is just the start of what is 'really happening'!!!

RussT, you have said that dark matter is neutrinos and I asked you before, if dark matter is neutrinos, how do they cause the observed but unexplained gravitational effect attributed to dark matter?

And, yes, I can answer this, BUT I am not going to until the rest of this is understood!It is not understood, and the spherical wave of photons vs. the straight path of neutrinos seems to be a problem with your idea.

Neutrinos travel in an almost straight line. If a photon "rides" the neutrinos in all directions, how do you explain the spherical wave structure of photons observed in the two slit experiments? Of course neutrinos would pass through both slits but how do they get out of phase so that they can cause the interference patterns if they are neutrinos going straight?

Photons expand spherically when going through the slits and getting out of phase is easy unless the angle to each slit is perfectly equal.


What is NOT being realized, by 'everyone', is just how basic the problem is with how Einstein (Lorentz and Maxwell) all developed "The Propagation of Light/photons"!!!

What does this say?

What you are showing, and the reason they got it all wrong, is that the two slit Experiment and ALL the others are actually going down to the quantum level to try to figure out what light/photons are doing on the macro level!!!

Put a light bulb/star in space........ALL of "Space" being Neutrinos, traveling at "c" in ALL EVERY direction Carries that light in straight line motion at "c" in ALL Every Direction.

The Orthagonal is nonesense as is the 'light cone' of SR.

What would be the impact on astronomy and cosmology if the speed of light was a dependent variable and the independent variable was the energy density of dark matter?

Then people would revise the permittivity/permeability of space and we'd have a fundamental unit of speed. Not to mention a revision of nearly all other units as a result.

I'm a strong proponent of the idea that we should figure out what exactly gravity is before we dream up invisible matter to explain why it's not behaving as we think it should.

What does this say?

What you are showing, and the reason they got it all wrong, is that the two slit Experiment and ALL the others are actually going down to the quantum level to try to figure out what light/photons are doing on the macro level!!!

Put a light bulb/star in space........ALL of "Space" being Neutrinos, traveling at "c" in ALL EVERY direction Carries that light in straight line motion at "c" in ALL Every Direction.

The Orthagonal is nonesense as is the 'light cone' of SR.So your idea does not solve the incompatibility issure where General Relativity breaks down in the quantum regime. Aren't we back to where we are now if we can't resolve that incompatibility. That is one of the reasons I speculate about Quantum Wave Cosmology in the first place, i.e. to describe what a unifying force would have to act like at both the macro and the micro levels.

In QWC the same force that causes quantum action to emanate spherical waves also causes the QWC version of the big bang. The tiny force that causes the observed interference pattern in the two slit experiments also causes matter to take form and gravity to be emanated from matter.

Quantum action is the force that is behind the power of the energy (the ability to do work) that we observe at both the micro and the macro levels.

Then people would revise the permittivity/permeability of space and we'd have a fundamental unit of speed. Not to mention a revision of nearly all other units as a result.I appreciate that you have addressed the question.

I have to ask you a follow-up question. Are you saying that we would have to revise our understanding of the speed of light as well as other units of measure.

Do you mean that if the speed of light was not invariant, then it couldn't be used as the fundamental unit of speed and so we would have to come up with another fundamental unit of speed?

If so, that is what I was thinking too.

To me it would make sense to define the speed of light as the fundamental unit within a particular environment where the density of the dark matter is range bound. For example in QWC where I speculate about a unifying force, dark matter has higher density in and around galaxies. The space between galaxies has a much lower dark matter density for reasons I describe in QWC.

I'm a strong proponent of the idea that we should figure out what exactly gravity is before we dream up invisible matter to explain why it's not behaving as we think it should.I completely agree. That is the reason that I have speculated about a unifying force in Quantum Wave Cosmology.

The same force that causes mass to exist also causes mass to emanate gravity. The force is quantum action. In QWC matter is quantized as increments of energy and an energy increment is called the quantum. Quantum action causes the generation of spherical quantum waves that stand out form a background of energy density.

In QWC the same force that causes quantum action to emanate spherical waves also causes the QWC version of the big bang.

How many times do I have to say this....There was NO Big Bang!

Naked singularities do NOT exist!
There never was any Spherically expanding "Horizons" of any kind that desribe the 'initial conditions' of our Universe! NO "Grapefruit" sized "Everywhere the center" of an expanding 'naked singularity'.................it is all completely meaningless!

Mainstream "Thinks" that they are covering every potential that the universe could be when they say "Static" (Einsteins original Blunder....Lambda) OR "closed"/'Contracting' (Down to a "grapefruit", a "Point" OR r=0/T=0) OR "Open"/Accelerating Expansion.

ALL of that is absolutely "Meaningless"!!!

Our Universe has NEVER had any potential to "Collapse In On Itself"........Period!!!

Everyone, including AlphaNumeric and ALL of the Pro's on BAUT, just keep ignoring this!!!

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/56088-fractal-universe.html


"The universe is not a fractal," Hogg insists, "and if it were a fractal it would create many more problems that we currently have." A universe patterned by fractals would throw all of cosmology out the window. Einstein's cosmic equations would be tossed first, with the big bang and the expansion of the universe following closely behind.

Hogg's team feel that until there's a theory to explain why the galaxy clustering is fractal, there's no point in taking it seriously. "My view is that there's no reason to even contemplate a fractal structure for the universe until there is a physical fractal model," says Hogg. "Until there's an inhomogeneous fractal model to test, it's like tilting at windmills."

Pietronero is equally insistent. "This is fact," he says. "It's not a theory."He says he is interested only in what he sees in the data and argues that the galaxies are fractal regardless of whether someone can explain why. MY BOLD!!!

The CMB is Isotropic and Homogenous (AND, IS NOT 'stretched Gamma Rays!!!), BUT the galaxies and the clusters are NOT.

Now, I can explain the full "Fractal Structure"............IF you want to listen and learn what is "REAL"........that is what actually 'Physically Exists'...starting with Kerr Rotating SMBH's!!!

...Now, I can explain the full "Fractal Structure"............IF you want to listen and learn what is "REAL"........that is what actually 'Physically Exists'...starting with Kerr Rotating SMBH's!!!How about starting a thread of your own to do your teaching. I'm using this one to discuss whether or not there is a possibility that the speed of light may be influenced by the density of dark matter :D.

How about starting a thread of your own to do your teaching. I'm using this one to discuss whether or not there is a possibility that the speed of light may be influenced by the density of dark matter :D.

What don't you understand when I say that the ONLY "Dark Matter" that we "Know" exists is Neutrinos?

AND they ARE going the speed of light,,,,,,,,,:shrug:

Now, I can explain the full "Fractal Structure"............IF you want to listen and learn what is "REAL"........that is what actually 'Physically Exists'...starting with Kerr Rotating SMBH's!!!

I also would like to hear your ideas on why galaxy formations on the largest scale are fractal in nature. This may not be the thread to do it in however...

You can do it on this thread if RussT wants too.

How about starting a thread of your own to do your teaching. I'm using this one to discuss whether or not there is a possibility that the speed of light may be influenced by the density of dark matter :D.

Are you saying that light moves faster between galaxies than in galaxies? We have a measurement for the speed of light in a vacuum but in our region, it would be travelling through DM (?)

100 Years of denying the Aether........

Dark Matter...........the ONLY kind we know of.........Neutrinos.

Now, Neutrinos are Non-Baryonic...............when they are "Free Neutrinos"....That means not 'captured as the mass particles that make up the electron/proton.

Those Neutrinos, as "Free Non-baryonic Particles" are ALL of space and all travel at "C", carrying ALL of the EM spectrum, in straightline motion.

Those Neutrinos get captured in the following ways...

1. When a SMBH is forming (Long GRB), that is from two "Branes" colliding.
a. Those neutrinos are left and right spin, and create the electrons/protons
b. GRB afterglow fades, cools and the hydrogen/helium/lithium/deuterium form
2. When star formation begins, the heavier gases are Fused (Not Burned) trapping more
Neutrinos in those processes, releasing Much more energy than the fission process we
have learned how to accomplish. This accounts for all the elements up to Iron.
3. Suoer Nova "Traps" neutrinos for the final accounting of the heavier than Iron
elements.

Now, there should be a very obvious difference (Not the Aether Carrying the EM part) in what I have just shown here than mainstream/Standard Model, that if you/anyone understands what I am saying, should be GLARING...;>)

Neutrinos are not the ONLY kind of dark matter that we know of.

Use your favorite internet search engine to research " dark state".

Are you saying that light moves faster between galaxies than in galaxies? We have a measurement for the speed of light in a vacuum but in our region, it would be traveling through DM (?)I have no evidence that dark matter is what I predict it is. I have no data to support that the speed of light is not invariant.

What I am trying to do is to discuss whether or not there is a possibility that the speed of light may be influenced by the density of dark matter.

On that basis, like the speed of light is affected by the medium through which it passes, then light would travel faster between galaxies than in galaxies. That wouldn't prove what dark matter is, but would prove that it gathers in conjunction with mass, and particularly in and around galaxies and to a lesser degree in deep space between galaxies.

What don't you understand when I say that the ONLY "Dark Matter" that we "Know" exists is Neutrinos?

AND they ARE going the speed of light,,,,,,,,,:shrug:

Uhhh.....Maybe because we also know about a kind of "dark matter" called "dark state" which has a range of speed from , let's say, one MPH slower than c down to not moving at all.

So dark matter is theorized to make up a huge percentage of the matter in the universe. Is there a consensus on what dark matter is and when and how it formed?

D H, would you move this to Pseudoscience for me.

OK then. Moved.