Anti-Dark Matter

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by joepistole, Nov 18, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    265
    PhysBang, Now that you bring up 'bad math' we can discuss how, in calculus, an undefined integral can be converted into an improper integral if you have + and - infinite limits on a lower sub function that cycles (but not if it only cycles once on a universal scale) from - infinity to + infinity.

    The best 'bad math' kludge is to say that -13.7 Billion balances with infinity so that obviously the universe must be expanding and it must abound with 'dark matter' but it's somewhere were we can't see it.

    Rpenner and PhysBang, the middle of the bridge between reality and the quantum world is the point where the photons are captured. The lensing involved requires further manipulation of the data prior to analysis so this must also be considered.

    The physics community would do itself a great service if it developed agreed protocols for crossing this bridge that take into consideration the entire path into the 'quantum world' and the return trip back to 'reality'.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    The physics community doesn't give a crap what you think. I asked you what was wrong with the measurements made during the experiments I mentioned. Your answer is Crayola nonsense.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Yeah, that's a whole lot of hooey. Honestly, it's embarrassing.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    265
    Brucep, did you get a circle too? You may like to look at the previous post about the differences between the reduced Compton wavelength and the standard Compton wavelength and the fact that anti/dark matter/energy papers are very unclear if they are working with relative mass or rest mass.

    Abuse solves everything doesn't it?
     
  8. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,302
    What papers?
     
  9. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    265
    So you got a circle too? Yes it would be embarassing to capture a one second exposures of a rotating light source and then take another one second exposure while rotating that source twice as fast and expect the amounts of light captured to be different.

    Also take note that the dimensionless constants used in my analysis are not in relation to mass.
     
  10. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    You're abusing this forum with nonsense. What you think the physics community should do IS crappy nonsense. Quit whining. Mass is invariant. It's not frame dependent.
     
  11. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Our universe is not infinite. It's infinite in extent [flat per WMAP]. The radius of the observable universe is 46 billion Ly. Dark matter interacts with visible matter gravitationally not electromagnetically. IE we can't see it. We can detect it.
    A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter
    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608407

    Science knows it exists as real natural phenomena [so we don't need anymore dumb proposals to explain it away, especially crayola nonsense] and some interesting proposals, to fill in the details, are being empirically tested as we speak.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2012
  12. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    265
    Brucep, note that the dimensionless constants given have no relationship with the mass that generated their curved paths as they flow from source to observer. That is why the calculations are out by 2Pi, the general physics community are blind to this curve, caused by the fact that the source is rotating, and therefore are out by 2Pi. Maybe they should ask their children if they get circles too.

    If it is being empirically tested as we speak then do you know a result that the entire scientific community is not aware of? You are the one being misleading Brucep! And you still have not told me what you would expect to capture, a circle indicating a curved path or a point (straight line) indicating the direct opposite to what Euclid proposed in his Optics!

    Hopefully they will also look into a couple of inconsistencies that are just being fobbed off by what appears to be reverse Euclidian Optics from 2,300 years ago that any child can disprove.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid's_Optics
    I will read the link you posted last and see if there are any discrepancies or omissions.

    BTW, why do you think that the majority of the worlds governments require that business employs external auditors?
     
  13. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    LaurieAG, call me a masochist but I like trying to understand everyone's perspective. What do you mean "the calculations are out by 2Pi"? Do you mean the entire Universe is rotating?
     
  14. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    265
    Hi RJBeery,

    No, not the universe, just the rotating source.

    The mechanics of the observation means that the observation point is (relatively) stationary during the period of the observation of a continuously emitting source that rotates around a distant galactic center. If you draw a straight line from each of the 4 points on the quadrants of rotation of the rotating source to the observation point and then determine the order in which these respective points will arrive at the observer after leaving each quadrant you will see the curve of the light path when you join up these points.

    This curve is natural and appears in every astronomical observation of rotating sources due to the period of that observation. So, as this curve or 'wave' is part and parcel of the mechanics of the observation of rotating galactic sources, you can overcorrect by 2 Pi if you are not aware of this curved path hidden in the data.

    In a linear fashion you could use a 'slinky' to describe this curve. In the local test the result is a circle while on galactic scales, such as in the diagram, you stretch the circle out into a smooth curve over a galactic year or more.

    The wave function of light may be a result of observing this natural curve.
     
  15. Engell79 Registered Member

    Messages:
    96
    To OP

    I have no knowlegde of the advanced science in all of this, and my level of engangement is at low level of insigt..(still struggeling with the standart model, and understanding it.)
    I've read a lot of articles about Darkmatter, cuz the whole concept is kinda..ehm..sexy intresting WOW awsome nasty amazing!.'

    But what kinda always put me off wen reading about it, is the way darkmatter came in to excistence..

    They found the universe lacking matter compared to the gravitational pull there exists in the universe. (Very superficial way of saying it i know.)

    So,..Hey...we're missing x amount of mass(more mass more gravitatational pull.) in the universe so yea.. must be something we cant see, lets call it DARKMATTER! and theres x mount of darkmatter so it accounts for the missing mass.

    I've read som many articles about this now, and never do anyone have certain proff of it even existing...
    Its basicly a thought, an idea...
    its looking in to a dark room, u know weighs 100 Kg but u can only see 50 1kg balls in there, so the remaining 50kg must be Darkmatter...

    I find the idea of Darkmatter very intresting, but honestly i think that every time some one writes Darkmatter it should say "The mass were missing and don't know were comes from."

    i might get a few dents in my hat for this post, but honestly find it strange that so few critizise the concept wich still have so many 'holes' in it.
    not saying that it dosnt exist or aint likely.. just that its far from proven.

    sorry for my bad english writing, hope i didnt loose to much of my intendet meaning.
     
  16. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    I see; are you saying that local light measurements don't detect wave-like behavior for light?
     
  17. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    265
    No, but if you observe a spiral path and think it's a straight line expect to find artefacts of Pi popping up all over the place.
     
  18. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Can you demonstrate that a single observation of a single galaxy has a significant "spiral path" component?
     
  19. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    265
    That's pretty good, changing the cosmology doesn't change the relative mass but ??? the observed absolute mass changes instead???

    Lets hope they do a proper job next time, have less caveats and anchor it through rest mass not relative mass.

     
  20. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    265
    PhysBang, every emitting source that rotates around a galactic center that is observered for a discrete period of time has this 'spiral path' as metadata. Unless you can get an infinitessimal period you will always have part of this curve present in your data.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.5191
    In the research I saw approximately 8-10 years ago, repeating patterns of light intensity were mapped for both quasar pairs and they matched 45-50% and 65-70% respectively of both one galactic year pathways shown on the image I posted.
     
  21. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    And can you show that this is significant?
    What does this have to do with anything that anyone here is discussing? Please explain.
     
  22. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    If you can't make sense quit posting in the physics & math section of the forum.
     
  23. prometheus viva voce! Moderator

    Messages:
    2,045
    If this thread doesn't improve I will be closing it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page