HYPOTHESIS: 'Recession' & 'Redshift' & Dark Matter Variations Over Time

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by RealityCheck, Mar 12, 2012.

  1. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    .

    We infer 'recession' from all the 'redshifted' light we receive here in our galaxy NOW (ie, in the form of 'CMB' and 'Standard Candle Supernovae' radiation wavelengths/frequencies).

    Consider: If Dark Matter content in galaxies earlier in the mass/gravity evolutionary period of all galaxies (including ours) was GREATER than it is NOW, then our own galaxy would not 'blueshift back all the way' the photons received from far away when the photons left a much stronger gravity well due to that earlier MUCH GREATER MASS from Dark Matter which has since dispersed/reduced to what we have now in OUR galaxy.


    So, HYPOTHESIS ONLY:

    Since the source gravity well redshift is not matched here and now by an equally counteracting 'blueshift' (since our spiral galaxy and all relatively 'settled' spiral galaxies have lost most of their dark matter content SINCE the time of emission from distant galaxies) then the 'redshift' may be due to a gravity well MISMATCH between emission gravity well strengths THERE/THEN and detection gravity well strength HERE/NOW in our galaxy. Hence any distant galaxy will look 'redder' because it WAS REDDER at the time compared to NOW. Hence it is possible that the distant galaxies look NOW much like ours does NOW, except that we only see them as they were THEN, so we infer recession instead of CHANGE IN GRAVITY strengths since then.



    Question: If the dark matter content variation in galaxies is significant enough over time between then and now, are 'cosmological redshift' values merely a measure of the PAST DARK MATTER MASS/GRAVITY states of distant galaxies compared to ours now? And if so, then perhaps 'cosmological recession' that is 'inferred' from such redshift values may not be 'evidence of recession' after all (or at least not to the extremes 'inferred')?

    I am sorry, but I must leave again. I may not be back for some time. I will try to come back asap to check for any ON TOPIC ONLY PLEASE responses regarding this HYPOTHESIS. Anyone interested or having any thought/view on this matter is welcome to contribute to this thread.

    Cheers!

    .

    PS: I was going to add this to my other 'dark matter' thread but it may be best to start a clean thread for the hypothesis which was in the offing when I started that other thread. By the way, I'd like to thank waitedavid137 and Robbitybob1 for their posts/replies which have served to 'firm' this hypothesis of mine. Thanks guys for your polite discourse! Much appreciated.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    .
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2012
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    One issue that comes up when postulating the effect of changes in dark matter, in either its distribution or absolute volume, is that dark matter itself is hypothetical.

    It is a place holder, inserted into existing theory (general relativity) to account for otherwise unexplained observations.

    No one really knows what it is or even if it is. There may actually be some previously undetectable form of matter/mass, or what we are calling dark matter could be an effect, of the dynamics of interactions we have as yet to understand.

    We find so many suprizes when we explore the world right in front of us, that it seems a bit ambitious to believe we can explain things so far in the distance, both in time and space, by adding a variable that at best is currently no more than a place holder. It might be a good idea to remember that in many ways when we use the term dark matter, its literal definition is, "something unknown".
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800

    Hi Only Me.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Just came back to PM prometheus and saw this when checking through before leaving again. Can't stay long, so briefly....

    That is the point mate. There IS no way of telling what may have affected the gravity strength states of galaxies so early in their evolutionary stages. Dark Matter could well BE a 'placeholder' for whatever it WAS that DID make galaxies much more massive/gravitating than they are now. Hence the mismatch (between galaxy's gravity well values then and now) I posit as the reason for possible inferences regarding recession.

    I posit Dark Matter as merely the current best term for whatever the gravitationally effective energy/matter content amy HAVE been within galaxies that now is not (at least not to the same extent it was THEN for all galaxies like ours).

    Thanks for your interest and heads-up re the 'placeholder' aspect, mate! Most appropriate observation there! Cheers and back when I can...maybe tomorrow next day? Who can tell?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    .
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Gosh, your just such a busy guy!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    It is so great that you can find the time to make these swell not quite scientific statements and to ask us these fascinatiing questions, mate. I'm sure that I speak for everyone when I say that is heartbreaking that you are so busy that you can't stay longer!

    Unfortunately I am really busy too, well at least for your threads!!

    I'll be back when I am so bored that watching drying paint would seem interesting.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Cheers!
     
  8. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800

    Hi origin.

    At least I pose a hypothesis here based on current Dark Matter observations in the professional literature. What have you done lately?

    All kidding aside, mate, do you have any comments/challenges to make re the HYPOTHESIS presented? Isn't THAT what you are supposed to want?

    So go to it, read and understand and make your input instead of making empty posts like that. No one is stopping you from making your scientific observation known ABOUT the HYPOTHESIS and its implications.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Show us your best scientific stuff, mate!

    So....do you agree/disagree with the implication that 'redshift' may NOT be the 'galaxy recession' indicator but rather the 'galaxy gravity well' indicator AT THE TIME OF EMISSION of their photons which we detect here/now in 'diminished gravity well' conditions due to changes over time in the dark matter (energy/mass or whatever the professionals end up calling it) distributions/content?

    Back tomorrow or earlier if I get a chance! Busy busy I certainly am lately! Aren't you? If not, then you may find the time to make a meaningful post on the OP matters instead of wasting your time in posting inanities? Thanks.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    .

    .
     
  9. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304

    This is typical RC. Tells you he's going for a week, gets your hopes up, and then shows up an hour later.

    no matter how stupid or inane, RC will post word salad.
     
  10. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    I don't understand this hypothesis.
     
  11. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Then your sanity has been confirmed.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    That cracked me up.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Well your 'hypothesis' reads like it was made with a random word generator so I can't really comment.

    What I would want, would be a hypothesis which was at least wrong - your hypothesis is gibberish.

    Take care mate!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Incredibly busy with self important stuff - I'll pop back in a about a month to see if you have your random word generator running better.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    .

    Good morning all.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    What is so hard to understand about galaxies billions of years old/distant hypothesized as having more dark matter (of whatever form) than they do now (including our own galaxy), and hence the gravity wells being stronger then than they are now (again, including our own galaxy)?

    And what is so hard to understand about the difference in significant galactic dark matter content between then and now resulting in observational mismatch between the (then) 'higher redshift' (due to the then/there greater dark matter gravity component redshifting effect on that earlier exiting-of photons-out-of-stronger-gravity-well of distant galaxies) and the (now) 'lesser compensating blueshift' (due to the now/here lesser dark matter gravity component blueshifting effect on the much later entering-of-those-same-photons-into-the-weaker-gravity-well of our galaxy)?



    Hence an Hypothesis: The observed distant 'redshifted' galaxies (and also our own) had MUCH STRONGER GRAVITY WELLS than they do NOW because they had much more dark matter gravity contribution than they have NOW. Hence the 'redshifting' of photons from distant source galaxies (then) will not be equally 'blueshifted' when those same photons enter our galaxy (now) because since their emission (there) all said galaxies (including our own) have LOST DARK MATTER to the extent that all the gravity wells (including ours here) are MUCH WEAKER.

    OK?

    The emissions from galaxies there/then were redshifted but the reception in galaxy here/now is insufficiently blueshifted to compensate; hence much of the original redshift (from there/then) remains when we detect those photons (here/now).

    OK?


    Hence the IMPLICATIONS which follow:

    Hence the redshifting may be HYPOTHESIZED to be due to THAT INHERENT MISMATCH in DARK MATTER gravity strengths between source and detector OVER TIME during which all observed galaxy's (including ours) gravity wells became weaker due to loss of dark matter.

    IF SO, then the redshift values we observe may not imply 'cosmological recession', but instead may imply 'cosmological gravity well mismatch' between when emitted and when received, and nothing else.

    And hence, the redshift interpretation as implying 'recession' may be merely an 'apparent artifact' of that mismatch rather than of an actual Big Bang type Expansion etc phenomenon; and hence the current theoretical interpretation of that redshift/blueshift mismatch may be misleading and not actually relate to 'cosmological recession/expansion' or other Big Bang scenario at all?


    That's it, really. How many more ways can it be put? If anyone here still cannot grasp the essentials, then perhaps it would be best for them to not participate in this thread and just ignore it?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Otherwise, any and all genuine and constructive observations/thoughts on the OP Hypothesis and its Implications as described will be welcome. Please try to stay on topic and avoid kneejerking/personal responses. Thanks!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I'll check in later today. Cheers!

    .
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2012
  15. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    .

    Hi James R.

    This is the thread I referred to in my response to you in the 'Ban the Sociopaths' thread. Cheers. And I repaet, except for what we have been discussing elsewere, this IS a great site. No wonder it was highly recommended to me by someone whose judgement I have found to be sound and intelligent to the max!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    I ask for your constructive assessment of the essentials of this hypothesis based on current observations/studies of dark matter distributions (which observations/studies I trust anyone who is interested will have familiarised themselves with before commenting here).

    I also ask you to judge for yourself whether my OP hypothesis deserved the mindless reception/treatment it got from certain malicious trolls and spoilers by now well-known to you who cared not for the substance but only the form (and took the opportunity to wreck in lieu of discuss). Thanks!

    G'night!

    .
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2012
  16. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Easy to understand, but it is baseless. There is absolutely no evidence to support your conjecture. There is plenty of evidence that galaxies are currently full of dark matter including our own.

    Conjectures like yours are quite easy to understand but only in the context that they are baseless conjectures.


    A hypothesis that relies on a baseless conjecture to explain something that is explained very well by an existing theory.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    No

    That makes no sense at all.

    No

    unevidence conjecture based on unevidence conjecture with a side serving of word salad.

    The essentials are understood and dismissed as nonscientific tripe.

    Your more than welcome. If there is ANY evidence that there is a decrease in the dark matter in galaxies over time now would be a good time to present it.
     
  17. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    .

    Good morning, origin!

    Meaning no disrespect, I must say it would have saved a lot of time, energy, patience and goodwill for all if you had only made this your original response, mate. But better late than never! Thanks!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Again, meaning no disrespect, if it was so easy to understand in the first place (whether you agree with it or not), I am nonplussed as to why then you did not say so in the first place and proceed then with this response? If I am nonplussed by such things it is because I just cannot understand why anyone who purports to be interested in the science content/discussion (instead of mere personality/kneejerk exchanges) would make the kind of snide and dismissive remarks which were the first reaction from you and certain others (who seemed disinterested in discussing the actual hypothesis in preference to posting empty/prejudicial remarks/judgements about it even before any discussion proper had got underway). It is such 'reactionary' behaviour that puts people off and leads them to believe that scientists are less than unbiased in mind and behaviour, don't you think? That is the sort of thing that gives anti-science and anti-global warming denialists ammunition to discredits scientists which they should not have if scientists kept to the facts and eschewed all that other stuff. Anyhow, I'm glad that you are now at least trying to engage fairly (although you could try harder to lose the still somewhat pugnacious/dismissive 'attitude' and it won't be missed at all, hey? It would be greatly appreciated, mate!).




    You seem so sure! May I ask if you are up to date with the latest observations/studies in the scientific news/literature regarding the galactic/intergalactic extent/distribution of Dark Matter? If so, you would have known that the Dark Matter has not always been what/where it is now; but has been affected by galactic evolution from early 'eliptical' to later 'spiral' types after many eons of collisions/aggregations and gravitational interactions which have disturbed the galactic DM content and resulted in what we observe today. So unless you are saying these recent studies/observations are 'baseless', then you could at least sound less dogmatic about any hypothesis using such observations/studies as support for VALID conjectures and hypotheses on the possible ramifications/implications for 'redshift mismath' and 'recession interpretations' etc etc based on the possible GRAVITATIONAL HISTORY over time of the galaxies concerned and the DM content/effects then and now?

    In short: If DM is valid PROFESSIONAL CONJECTURE, then SO IS MY HYPOTHESIS/CONJECTURE valid. So I will thank you for not making such sweeping prejudicial and unsupported 'opinions', mate. It would make the SCIENCE discourse more fair and more courteous, don't you think?


    Again such sure and dismissive 'opinion' without support. Is this the way you do science/discourse? So adamant and yet so sparing in justification of your pontifications about 'baselessness'!



    So you now use your previous opinions and pontifications on 'baselessness' as a basis for further unsupported opinion and pontification on 'baselessness'? When do you stop the chain of self-justifying 'opinion and pontification' and start actually considering what is presented on its own merits having fair regard to the explicitly mentioned BASIS upon which I put my OP hypothesis/conjecture (ie, the latest DM observations/studies; which one should first acquaint themselves with before being so adamantly 'sure' and 'dismissive' and making pontifications like 'baseless', hey?). I'm curious, have you read all the latest on DM observations/studies/conjectures and their gravitational effects/evolutions/extents in the news/literature? It would help.


    I thought you said earlier above that it was easy to understand? Anyway, I will lead you through it if that is what it takes. Long ago, light was emitted from galaxies far away. That light is just now reaching us in our galaxy. With me so far? Good. Now, IF ALL galaxies at the time when the light was emitted were RICHER in DM content THEN, and hence had STRONGER GRAVITY WELL as a consequence, and IF all galaxies HAVE SINCE LOST MUCH of that original DM content to INTERGALACTIC SPACE (recent observations/studies indicate that DM extends from galactic regions out to intergalactic space without any definite 'boundary' between the galaxy and the vast intergalactic space), then IF we NOW receive such light in our DM-POORER Milky Way galaxy ('poorer' compared to earlier times when ALL galaxies were RICHER in DM), then the BLUESHIFT of that light due to infalling into our weaker gravity well would NOT FULLY COUNTERACT the original REDSHIFT from the far source galaxies whose gravity well was MUCH STRONGER when that light climed out of that gravity well much enhanced by much greater DM content.

    Can you understand the implications for MISMATCHED REDSHIFT-BLUESHIFT of such a 'gravitational' MISMATCH between emission and reception of that light from 'ther/then' to 'now/here'?

    The implication is that since the photon redshift while exiting far galaxies is not fully counteracted by photon blueshift at entry into our galaxy (because of DM 'gravity effect' mismatch between then and now), it is only logical to conjecture that the redshift that 'remains uncountered' can be interpreted as showing the difference between DM gravity between far galaxies ('then') and our own galaxy 'now'). And if that is all that it can be interpreted as, then there is NO NEED for interpreting that 'remaining uncountered' redshift as indicating 'cosmological recession' or 'space expansion' etc etc.

    And if that is so, then it is also valid to conjecture that Big Bang scenarios based on 'redshift values' from far galaxies etc are moot; since that redshift may just be a 'measure' of the evolutionary process in gravitational well strengths due to the variations in DM content/effects in galaxies since those earlier times when the light left those far galaxies.

    Again, just so you can't possibly miss the full and obvious import of my (perfectly) valid DM-history/distribution-based hypothesis/conjecture:

    If my hypothesis and its implications/interpretations are correct (only further professional consideration will tell), we may find that 'expanding space' and 'cosmological recession' and suchlike Big Bang scenarios may not be as 'unassailable' or as 'firmly based' as they were thought to be. After all, these were also CONJECTURES based on the INTERPRETATION of REDSHIFT VALUES from distant galaxies. And IF such redshift values can be now RE-INTERPRETED based on the COSMOLOGICAL TIME DARK MATTER gravity well strength evolution since emission and reception of the light we used to CONJECTURE Big Bang recession/expansion scenarios in the first place, then we have to go back to 'square one' and re-interpret all the rest of the 'evidence' on which all Big Bang scenarios are also based. Scary (for some), isn't it?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    As opposed to your chain of unsupported dismissals and pontifications even before the discussion of my hypothesis and its ramifications had properly begun?

    Perhaps it would help you to sound less cocksure of yourself and your 'current understandings' if you were to realize that the original Big Bang scenarios were ALL, every one, CONJECTURES based on the interpretations of 'redshift values'.

    Just in case you missed that little bit of news, I repeat: Big Bang scenarios were ALL CONJECTURES based on redshift values 'interpretation'.

    So, what is wrong with my PRESENT CONJECTURES based on THOSE SAME redshift values BUT NOW ascribing them to the DM effects on gravity wells then and now and not needing to invoke Big Bang 'expansion/recession scenarios to explain it?

    All perfectly legitimate conjecture and speculation based on PROFESSIONAL DM observations/studies which provide us with ANOTHER CAUSE/INTERPRETATION of such redshift/blueshift 'mismatch' due to mismatched gravity well effects due to DM 'mismatch' between then and now. Perfectly valid and sound extrapolation of professionally derived data/speculation/conjecture etc regarding DM which you can find in the relevant news/literature. Then maybe you may not come across so cocksure and dismissive of others' perfectly legitimate extrapolations just as the professionals would do it if they had come up with my hypothesis. So your continual dismissal of my legitimate efforts/conjectures shows that you may possibly be suffering from 'elitist complex/bias' and will not read/treat others ideas/efforts fairly (perish the thought anyone here suffers from such a terrible affliction, hey!).


    And your cocksure attitude and opinions and pontifications would be all that we require to come to a decision on the facts of the matter? Respectfully, I suggest you at least make an effort towards less bias and preconclusion when attempting to discuss something which (if eventually proven correct by further professional examination of the DM-mismatch implications for observed cosmological redshift) would shake what you think you 'know' to its foundations. Less elitist attitude from you, and more humility and patience/forbearance, when talking serious matters like possible re-interpretations for the redshift and the Big Bang conjectures based on such, mate. Thanks!



    It is a perfectly valid extrapolation of cosmic evolution of galaxies (collisions, mergers, expulsions, gravity interactions etc etc.) No biggie. Just looks at the DYNAMICS and evolutionary probabilities based on the professionals' own data/conjectures on DM. No more, no less.

    That there may be less DM/gravity now in all galaxies (including our own) than there was then is not therefore a consideration beyond the pale. There are much more 'beyond the pale' speculations from the professionals about all sorts of things. I at least based my speculations/OP on the DM observations/studies to date and extrapolated the implications for 'big bang/recession' from there. Not anywhere near as outrageous as you try to make it sound with your opinions, mate.



    Anyway, I suggest that anyone intending to make comment on the OP hypothesis and implications/conjectures should at least read the latest PROFESSIONAL observations/studies and conjectures on DARK MATTER extent/distribution etc in the relevant news/literature. Otherwise your comments will just be your 'opinion' rather than proper discourse of the OP.


    Anyhow, origin, I bear no grudge or ill will from past exchanges. Life is too short and science too important for such. Thanks again for finally trying to address the OP at last (although your latest response still sounds as if you want to 'opinion it away with prejudice', as one might put it after reading your comments therein).

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Good luck and enjoy the proper (and it is to be hoped 'attitude free'?) discussion of the actual OP hypothesis/implications, origin, everyone! Back tomorrow if I can! All courteous and fairminded inputs from any quarter is more than welcome. Cheers!

    .
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2012
  18. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Like I said before, if there is ANY evidence that there is a decrease in the dark matter in galaxies over time now would be a good time to present it.

    You see if there is no evidence of this then your theory is dead on arrival. Capisce?
     
  19. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    I already pointed that out.

    I use the SAME 'evidence' that the earlier conjectures of Big Bang hypothesis used....namely the REDSHIFT values observed.

    The difference is that I do not need to invoke a Big Bang 'expansion/recession' (which is how the redshift WAS INTERPRETED AS INDICATING when there seemed no other reason for it at the time of the original Big Bang assumptions/interpretations).

    I only NOW have recourse to the LATEST DM observations/studies which NOW afford me a DIFFERENT way of interpreting the same redshift values 'evidence' previously observed.....and just hypothesizing from there.

    This new hypothesis is perfectly justified since the professionals have observed that the DM content/distribution has not been 'static' over the evolutionary time of the galaxy distribution/dynamics.

    So, I use the same 'vidence' and use MORE RECENT DATA/OBSERVATIONS by professionals regarding DM, and produce a NEW HYPOTHESIS without involving Big Bang conjectures/interpretations' for it.

    Ask yourself honestly: If that recent DM data/observation had been available when the first Big Bang CONJECTURES were being bandied about, would the conjectures have stood against what would have seemed a more directly observable MISMATCH between gravity wells due to DM dynamics/contributions/decreases as I hypothesize now?


    I repeat, the same 'evidence' (redshift values) is what I use; only MY interpretation of that same 'evidence' is based ON MORE RECENT EVIDENCE/OBSERVATIONS which put DARK MATTER CONTRIBUTIONS/CHANGES front and centre as more likely cause of the MISMATCH between redshift from far distant/earlier 'there/then' stronger gravity well and insufficient blueshift to counteract it from the local/later 'here/now' but much weaker gravity well.

    The evidence is the same. Got it? Only the interpretation is different because I have information not available when 'recession/expansion' was the 'interpretation' they came up with in the absence of any other available data/observation/possibilities which have arisen since then.

    I trust you will now stop and see that the 'evidence' is the same but differently interpreted given new data/possibilities as I posited? I don't know how else to put it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Naturally. since it is only a hypothesis/conjecture (reasonable given the new information on DM dynamics etc), it will require further study/input by the professionals to either confirm or falsify it. No sweat. I can wait with equanimity for the professionals to come up with a definitive yea or nay.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Thanks.

    .
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2012
  20. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Your say so is not evidence. Invoking unnamed 'professionals' is not evidence. The use of bolded font is not evidence.

    It is your hypothesis so give me something more than unevidenced conjecture.
     
  21. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    How many times/ways can I put it?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The 'evidence' is the ame redshift data that was used for the zBg Bang interpretations of it to conjecture the expansion/recession.

    The NEW DAT/OBSERVATIONS available now (but which was not available when the BBang scenarios were hypothesized) is available to all who interested. All you need do is search out the latest news/literature on DARK MATTER DYNAMICS/DISTRIBUTIONS observed/studied and you will find all the same NEW information which I used to hypothesize a new interpretation of the already known redshift 'evidence'.

    My hypothesis merely consists of using the new data/possibilities to RE-INTERPRET the same old redshift 'evidence' (which earlier on was used ALONE and without the benefit of the latest information about DM gravity variations over cosmological evolution period) and so consider its possible implications for the re-interpretation of the previously known redshift data based on more recent DM extent/distribution etc discoveries/info.

    I haven't all the references. Only a wide reading of the relevant recent DM news/literature can give you the full impact of the possibilities it presents for re-interpreting old redshift data and BBang conjectures in a different way than before the new DM info availability.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Get looking for yourself. And then come back with your own take on the latest DM studies/observations. And we'll compare if/how your take will be any different from mine as represented in my OP hypothesis/implications.

    Really rushed! Gotta go again! Cheers!

    .
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2012
  22. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    Perhaps somewhat Off-Topic from the OP . . . IMPO . . . (re: James R) Re: The uncivil and denigrating discussions in this thread: Is Sciforums attempting to promote itself as a 'refereed' publication in which the mods and admin are the referees?. . . . . won't work guys/gals. The OP is simply trying to present his 'hypothesis' (not theory). Why not intelligently discuss the hypothesis, and NOT the author of the hypothesis?

    wlminex
     
  23. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    There is some merit to your post. However, as an unsupported hypothesis it should likely be in Alternative Theories, rather than here in a Science folder.

    Running the thread here, it should be held to a bit higher standard than this is what I think.
     

Share This Page