Luminiferous Aether Exists!

[Aqueous Id]

Nice posts. Always.

Thanks, I'm a great fan of yours. I'm glad you keep posting here which gives this board have a special appeal. Plus, it's odd how cranks like to take you guys on. ("You" being people of your caliber.) I'm waiting for the psych journal article that will announce a new diagnosis for the crank-bashing-experts-while-spouting-trash syndrome.

 

[gravitational_aether]

Thanks, I'm a great fan of yours. I'm glad you keep posting here which gives this board have a special appeal. Plus, it's odd how cranks like to take you guys on. ("You" being people of your caliber.) I'm waiting for the psych journal article that will announce a new diagnosis for the crank-bashing-experts-while-spouting-trash syndrome.

Or, you could stop basing your scientific 'knowledge' on dogma and correctly understand what it means for 'dark matter' not to be anchored to matter.

'Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in NASA Hubble Image'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/mar/HQ_12-068_Hubble_Dark_Core.html

"This technique revealed the dark matter in Abell 520 had collected into a "dark core," containing far fewer galaxies than would be expected if the dark matter and galaxies were anchored together. Most of the galaxies apparently have sailed far away from the collision. "This result is a puzzle," said astronomer James Jee of the University of California in Davis, lead author of paper about the results available online in The Astrophysical Journal. "Dark matter is not behaving as predicted, and it's not obviously clear what is going on. It is difficult to explain this Hubble observation with the current theories of galaxy formation and dark matter.""

The dark matter core does not defy explanation. The dark matter core is not a puzzle. The dark matter core is not difficult to explain. It is obviously clear what is going on.

'Dark matter' and galaxies are not anchored together. There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

 

[Aqueous Id]

In astronomy, the interstellar medium (or ISM) is the matter that exists in the space between the star systems in a galaxy. This matter includes gas in ionic, atomic, and molecular form, dust, and cosmic rays. It fills interstellar space and blends smoothly into the surrounding intergalactic space.

That definition is incorrect and shows the ignorance associated with mainstream physics.

That would be like going to Spain and, upon discovering that they are all using the term adios to mean goodbye, you then announced that all mainstream Spanish-speakers are ignorant. The term interstellar medium is a term coined by scientists to describe the particles that form the clouds in open space between stars. You will hear this at the opening remarks to the NASA video I posted. I specifically chose that one since you were trying to twist their words.

The analogy of the bow wave of a boat is more accurate than you are able or willing to understand.

An electromagnetic bow wave, an analogy Dr McComas would revise if he had any idea it would be twisted into aether.

Aether has mass.

Then state its mass in kilograms. You can't, because it doesn't.

Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.

Then state its volume in cubic meters. You can't, because it doesn't.

Aether is physically displaced by matter.

Then state its displacement in meters and/or its rate of displacement in meters per second. You can't, because it isn't.

The bow wave of a boat is the boat's associated water displacement wave. The wave out ahead of our solar system is the solar system's associated aether displacement wave.

No, as NASA tells you, it is a purely electromagnetic phenomenon. Dr McComas is "mainstream physics", and he would take you behind the woodshed for your slander (rhetorically, of course) in a heartbeat if he had time to fritter away on SciForums.

The reason why there is an offset between the light lensing through the space neighboring galaxy clusters and the galaxy clusters themselves is because the galaxy clusters are moving through and displacing the aether.

No, gravitational lensing was predicted by Einstein, proven at a solar eclipse he missed, and is further demonstrated by Gravity Probe B. It's all consistent with GR.

The ripple created when galaxy clusters collide is an aether displacement wave.

No, there's no aether, remember? There's no mass in kilograms, no volume in meters, no displacement in meters, and no displacement velocity in meters per second.

The 'core' of mass 'left behind' when galaxy clusters collide is caused by the galaxy clusters moving through and displacing the aether.

And you know that with certainty even though you are not aware that the force presented by a charge moving orthogonally to a magnetic field is equal to the amount of charge times the particle speed timed the field strength? This is like telling the Spaniard adios doesn't mean good-bye, without any knowledge that the salutation used to be Dominus vobiscum (God go with you), and that the nominative form Deus converted in Spain to Dios.

I usually avoid analogies, but there's a time and a place, I guess. The facts are these: "mainstream physics" is not only a euphemism. It's synonymous with knowledge, acquired from best evidence. If you never had an opportunity to acquire the knowledge yourself, that's one thing. But to turn around and call knowledge ignorance, merely to shore up a false belief, and when you have people spoon feeding you the simplified explanations, made easy as pie to understand, well - you be the judge. Imagine if I--and others similarly situated--were jumping to false conclusions, with no laws, no evidence and no working knowledge to support our posts. Put the shoe on the other foot.

 

[Aqueous Id]

It is the aether displaced by the matter the solar system consists of which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system which causes the magentic field to pile up.

No, it's pure electromagnetics, as explained to you in pedestrian terms in the NASA video I posted. (Although I realize you're saying NASA is ignorant. If that's a legitimate measurement scale, then I'm aspiring to be an idiot.)

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.

A critical fallacy. Here you are denying electromagnetics altogether. Yet you are voicing your denial of an electromagentic medium throughout which Maxwell's equations are found to be consistently exploited in order to get you high reliability high bandwidth high coverage high positioning accuracy internet service. You simply can't repeal electromagnetics. Especially by proclamation.

To be sure, a moving charged particle has an associated magnetic field.

A moving magnetic field also produces an electromagnetic wave, and that is all Dr McComas said about that, nothing more, certainly nothing to shore up the spurious twist you put on his explanation.

In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether through both.

In a single slit the particle and wave can be observed "simultaneously". In the double slit the fringe pattern demonstrates wave interference that must necessarily occur if the particle stream is truly propagating as a sinusoidal wave. The double slit confirms what electromagnetics predicts about the wave propagation state of a particle stream.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

Proclaiming it so does not make it so.

The Milky Way's halo is what Einstein referred to as curved spacetime.

As I recall Einstein was talking about a person on a train and a person on a platform. However, there is no doubt that spacetime curves in the vicinity of dense matter. But so what?

Here we have the Milky Way's halo which is the best evidence yet of curved spacetime and you have to deny this evidence because acknowledging this evidence would cause you to have to admit aether exists.

No, GR does not rely on aether one whit. It relies on mass. This is why aether shows up nowhere in Einstein's field equations, or in any of his work whatsoever.

It is more important to you to remain ignorant of understanding what occurs physically in nature than to admit aether exists.

It is most important of all to follow best evidence. There is no evidence of aether, and there is evidence against it. There is evidence of electromagnetics, and there is mountains of evidence that confirm it. This is settled law. Nature is actually doing what you adamantly deny. You're simply wrong, although you apparently haven't taken the time to understand why.

"space without ether is unthinkable" - Albert Einstein

Finish the quote:

But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

Further:

Albert Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity could generate the same mathematics without referring to an aether at all. This led most physicists to conclude that the classical notion of aether was not a useful concept.

And so on.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Or, you could stop basing your scientific 'knowledge' on dogma and correctly understand what it means for 'dark matter' not to be anchored to matter...."This technique revealed the dark matter in Abell 520 had collected into a "dark core," containing far fewer galaxies than would be expected if the dark matter and galaxies were anchored together. Most of the galaxies apparently have sailed far away from the collision. "This result is a puzzle," said astronomer James Jee of the University of California in Davis, lead author of paper about the results available online in The Astrophysical Journal. "Dark matter is not behaving as predicted, and it's not obviously clear what is going on. It is difficult to explain this Hubble observation with the current theories of galaxy formation and dark matter.""...The dark matter core does not defy explanation. The dark matter core is not a puzzle. The dark matter core is not difficult to explain. It is obviously clear what is going on....'Dark matter' and galaxies are not anchored together. There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

This is an exciting discovery from a mainstream POV but it's of no use to you since it says nothing of aether. It gives you no clue about aether's mass, volume, displacement distance or velocity that you repeatedly insist it has. None of those measurements are forthcoming because there is no such thing as aether.

What's nutty about the stuff you cite are contradictions like this:

The dark matter core is not a puzzle. The dark matter core is not difficult to explain.

posted in counterpoint to the supporting cite:

"This result is a puzzle,"

by mainstream physicists at NASA who you say (earlier post) are

ignorant.

Now...what were you saying about dogma?

 

[Aqueous Id]

When you place an ice cube into a glass of water the ice cube displaces the water. Both are made of H2O.

When you place an ice cube into an empty glass, it displaces air, which usually has a relatively small number of water molecules in it, which is what ice is mostly made of.

When you pour water on top of the ice cube, even more air is displaced.

The displacement can be measured exactly, by volume or weight measurements, which also rely on displacements in order for the devices to work.

Therefore there simply can be no aether displacement. Once again, I think you've found convincing evidence that your beliefs are false.

Also, since the water, the ice and the air have actual mass, their temperature can be measured. All kinds of facts about the thermal conductivity, specific heat and melting point of ice can be gleaned.

Alas, with aether we get no temperature, thermal conductivity or specific heat. This is because it has no mass. Further, aether has no effect on the temperature of the masses we observe, contrary to the interaction measurable in a glass of iced water, in which we can measure the rate of temperature drop in the water as it gives up kinetic energy to the less energetic ice, until they come into equilibrium. Under controlled circumstances, we could measure the rate of temp drop of the air around the equalizing ice water, until it gave as much of its heat to the water as required to reach equilibrium. In balance, we could monitor the dissipation of the cool air around the glass into the ambient and account for all of the thermodynamics of the complex of substances that, as they displace each other, also obey the laws of conservation of energy which (someday you may learn) account for heat transfer.

However, no heat transfer is observed between matter and aether. Therefore, aether can not exist.

 

[origin]

Any viable hypothesis or theory must be able to be falsified. What experimental result would falsify your aether idea?

 

[gravitational_aether]

That would be like going to Spain and, upon discovering that they are all using the term adios to mean goodbye, you then announced that all mainstream Spanish-speakers are ignorant. The term interstellar medium is a term coined by scientists to describe the particles that form the clouds in open space between stars. You will hear this at the opening remarks to the NASA video I posted. I specifically chose that one since you were trying to twist their words.


An electromagnetic bow wave, an analogy Dr McComas would revise if he had any idea it would be twisted into aether.


Then state its mass in kilograms. You can't, because it doesn't.


Then state its volume in cubic meters. You can't, because it doesn't.


Then state its displacement in meters and/or its rate of displacement in meters per second. You can't, because it isn't.


No, as NASA tells you, it is a purely electromagnetic phenomenon. Dr McComas is "mainstream physics", and he would take you behind the woodshed for your slander (rhetorically, of course) in a heartbeat if he had time to fritter away on SciForums.


No, gravitational lensing was predicted by Einstein, proven at a solar eclipse he missed, and is further demonstrated by Gravity Probe B. It's all consistent with GR.


No, there's no aether, remember? There's no mass in kilograms, no volume in meters, no displacement in meters, and no displacement velocity in meters per second.


And you know that with certainty even though you are not aware that the force presented by a charge moving orthogonally to a magnetic field is equal to the amount of charge times the particle speed timed the field strength? This is like telling the Spaniard adios doesn't mean good-bye, without any knowledge that the salutation used to be Dominus vobiscum (God go with you), and that the nominative form Deus converted in Spain to Dios.

I usually avoid analogies, but there's a time and a place, I guess. The facts are these: "mainstream physics" is not only a euphemism. It's synonymous with knowledge, acquired from best evidence. If you never had an opportunity to acquire the knowledge yourself, that's one thing. But to turn around and call knowledge ignorance, merely to shore up a false belief, and when you have people spoon feeding you the simplified explanations, made easy as pie to understand, well - you be the judge. Imagine if I--and others similarly situated--were jumping to false conclusions, with no laws, no evidence and no working knowledge to support our posts. Put the shoe on the other foot.

Why don't you explain to us how 'dark matter' is left behind when galaxy clusters collide. You won't, because you can't.

'Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in NASA Hubble Image'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/mar/HQ_12-068_Hubble_Dark_Core.html

"This technique revealed the dark matter in Abell 520 had collected into a "dark core," containing far fewer galaxies than would be expected if the dark matter and galaxies were anchored together. Most of the galaxies apparently have sailed far away from the collision. "This result is a puzzle," said astronomer James Jee of the University of California in Davis, lead author of paper about the results available online in The Astrophysical Journal. "Dark matter is not behaving as predicted, and it's not obviously clear what is going on. It is difficult to explain this Hubble observation with the current theories of galaxy formation and dark matter.""

The dark matter core does not defy explanation. The dark matter core is not a puzzle. The dark matter core is not difficult to explain. It is obviously clear what is going on.

Non-baryonic dark matter and galaxies are not anchored together. There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

 

[gravitational_aether]

No, it's pure electromagnetics, as explained to you in pedestrian terms in the NASA video I posted. (Although I realize you're saying NASA is ignorant. If that's a legitimate measurement scale, then I'm aspiring to be an idiot.)


A critical fallacy. Here you are denying electromagnetics altogether. Yet you are voicing your denial of an electromagentic medium throughout which Maxwell's equations are found to be consistently exploited in order to get you high reliability high bandwidth high coverage high positioning accuracy internet service. You simply can't repeal electromagnetics. Especially by proclamation.

To be sure, a moving charged particle has an associated magnetic field.

A moving magnetic field also produces an electromagnetic wave, and that is all Dr McComas said about that, nothing more, certainly nothing to shore up the spurious twist you put on his explanation.


In a single slit the particle and wave can be observed "simultaneously". In the double slit the fringe pattern demonstrates wave interference that must necessarily occur if the particle stream is truly propagating as a sinusoidal wave. The double slit confirms what electromagnetics predicts about the wave propagation state of a particle stream.


Proclaiming it so does not make it so.


As I recall Einstein was talking about a person on a train and a person on a platform. However, there is no doubt that spacetime curves in the vicinity of dense matter. But so what?


No, GR does not rely on aether one whit. It relies on mass. This is why aether shows up nowhere in Einstein's field equations, or in any of his work whatsoever.


It is most important of all to follow best evidence. There is no evidence of aether, and there is evidence against it. There is evidence of electromagnetics, and there is mountains of evidence that confirm it. This is settled law. Nature is actually doing what you adamantly deny. You're simply wrong, although you apparently haven't taken the time to understand why.



Finish the quote:

But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

Further:

Albert Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity could generate the same mathematics without referring to an aether at all. This led most physicists to conclude that the classical notion of aether was not a useful concept.

And so on.

All Einstein is saying is the aether does not consist of parts which may be tracked through time. Indiviual particles which can be tracked through time is Einstein's definition of motion when discussing the aether.

Displacement is different than Einstein's definition of motion as applied to the aether.

 

[gravitational_aether]

This is an exciting discovery from a mainstream POV but it's of no use to you since it says nothing of aether. It gives you no clue about aether's mass, volume, displacement distance or velocity that you repeatedly insist it has. None of those measurements are forthcoming because there is no such thing as aether.

What's nutty about the stuff you cite are contradictions like this:



posted in counterpoint to the supporting cite:

"This result is a puzzle,"

by mainstream physicists at NASA who you say (earlier post) are



Now...what were you saying about dogma?

The result is not a puzzle. The result is only a puzzle because mainstream physics made up absurd nonsense about 'dark matter' being anchored to matter. Now that absurd nonsense has been refuted. If mainstream physics hadn't made up the absurd nonsense in the first place the result would not be a puzzle. If mainstream physics correctly understood aether has mass then the correct explanation is not a puzzle.

Try and understand the following words I am posting.

Explain why the 'dark matter' is being left behind when galaxy clusters collide.

'Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in NASA Hubble Image'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/mar/HQ_12-068_Hubble_Dark_Core.html

"This technique revealed the dark matter in Abell 520 had collected into a "dark core," containing far fewer galaxies than would be expected if the dark matter and galaxies were anchored together. Most of the galaxies apparently have sailed far away from the collision. "This result is a puzzle," said astronomer James Jee of the University of California in Davis, lead author of paper about the results available online in The Astrophysical Journal. "Dark matter is not behaving as predicted, and it's not obviously clear what is going on. It is difficult to explain this Hubble observation with the current theories of galaxy formation and dark matter.""

The dark matter core does not defy explanation. The dark matter core is not a puzzle. The dark matter core is not difficult to explain. It is obviously clear what is going on.

There is nothing to 'leave behind'. Non-baryonic dark matter was never anchored to the matter in the first place. There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

 

[origin]

In case you missed this.

Any viable hypothesis or theory must be able to be falsified. What experimental result or data would falsify your aether idea?

 

[gravitational_aether]

In case you missed this.

Any viable hypothesis or theory must be able to be falsified. What experimental result or data would falsify your aether idea?

All 'delayed choice quantum eraser' experiments are explained by understanding conservation of momentum and a moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.

In the image on the right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment When the downconverted photon pair are created, in order for there to be conservation of momentum, the original photons momentum is conserved. This means the downconverted photon pair have opposite polarizations. We will describe one of the photons as being the 'up' photon and the other photon as being the 'down' photon. One of the downconverted photons travels either the red or blue path toward D0 and the other photon travels either the red or blue path toward the prism.

There are physical waves in the aether propagating both the red and blue paths. The aether waves propagating toward D0 interact with the lens and create interference prior to reaching D0. The aether waves create interference which alters the direction the photon travels prior to reaching D0. There are actually two interference patterns being created at D0. One associated with the 'up' photons when they arrive at D0 and the other interference pattern associated with the 'down' photons when they arrive at D0.

Both 'up' and 'down' photons are reflected by BSa and arrive at D3. Since there is a single path toward D3 there is nothing for the wave in the aether to interfere with and there is no interference pattern and since it is not determined if it is an 'up' or 'down' photon being detected at D3 there is no way to distinguish between the photons arriving at D0 which interference pattern each photon belongs to. The same for photons reflected by BSb and arrive at D4.

Photons which pass through BSa and are reflected by BSc and arrive at D1 are either 'up' or 'down' photons but not both. If 'up' photons arrive at D1 then 'down' photons arrive at D2. The opposite occurs for photons which pass through BSb. Photons which pass through BSa and pass through BSb and arrive at D1 are all either 'up' or 'down' photons. If all 'up' photons arrive at D1 then all 'down' photons arrive at D2. Since the physical waves in the aether traveling both the red and blue paths are combined prior to D1 and D2 the aether waves create interference which alters the direction the photon travels. Since all 'up' photons arrive at one of the detectors and all 'down' photons arrive at the other an interference pattern is created which reflects back to the interference both sets of photons are creating at D0.

The following experiment will provide evidence of the correctness of pilot-wave theory:

Instead of having a single beam splitter BSc have two beam splitters BSca and BScb. Replace mirror Ma with BSca and replace mirror Mb interact with BScb. Do not combine the red and blue paths. Have additional detectors D1a, D2a, D1b, and D2b. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BSca be detected at D1a and D2a. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BScb be detected at D1b and D2b. If you compare the photons detected at D1a and (D1b or D2b) with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. If you compare the photons detected at D2a and (D1b or D2B) with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. What is occurring is all 'up' photons are being detected at one pair of detectors, for example D1a and D1b, and all 'down' photons are being detected at the other pair of detectors, for example D2a and D2b. Interference patterns do not even need to be created in order to determine the interference patterns created at D0.

If the results are not as expected then the aether displacement explanation as to what occurs in a 'delayed-choice quantum eraser' experiment will have to be revisited.

In case you missed this.

Explain why the 'dark matter' is being left behind when galaxy clusters collide.

'Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in NASA Hubble Image'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/mar/HQ_12-068_Hubble_Dark_Core.html

"This technique revealed the dark matter in Abell 520 had collected into a "dark core," containing far fewer galaxies than would be expected if the dark matter and galaxies were anchored together. Most of the galaxies apparently have sailed far away from the collision. "This result is a puzzle," said astronomer James Jee of the University of California in Davis, lead author of paper about the results available online in The Astrophysical Journal. "Dark matter is not behaving as predicted, and it's not obviously clear what is going on. It is difficult to explain this Hubble observation with the current theories of galaxy formation and dark matter.""

The dark matter core does not defy explanation. The dark matter core is not a puzzle. The dark matter core is not difficult to explain. It is obviously clear what is going on.

There is nothing to 'leave behind'. Non-baryonic dark matter was never anchored to the matter in the first place. There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

 

[origin]

Explain why the 'dark matter' is being left behind when galaxy clusters collide.

'Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in NASA Hubble Image'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/mar/HQ_12-068_Hubble_Dark_Core.html

"This technique revealed the dark matter in Abell 520 had collected into a "dark core," containing far fewer galaxies than would be expected if the dark matter and galaxies were anchored together. Most of the galaxies apparently have sailed far away from the collision. "This result is a puzzle," said astronomer James Jee of the University of California in Davis, lead author of paper about the results available online in The Astrophysical Journal. "Dark matter is not behaving as predicted, and it's not obviously clear what is going on. It is difficult to explain this Hubble observation with the current theories of galaxy formation and dark matter."

I agree with NASA that it is a bit of a mystery at this point. Making up silly arm waving aether stuff is not an explanation.

 

[gravitational_aether]

I agree with NASA that it is a bit of a mystery at this point. Making up silly arm waving aether stuff is not an explanation.

I didn't ask you for excuses. I asked you to explain why the 'dark matter' is being left behind when galaxy clusters collide.

'Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in NASA Hubble Image'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/mar/HQ_12-068_Hubble_Dark_Core.html

"This technique revealed the dark matter in Abell 520 had collected into a "dark core," containing far fewer galaxies than would be expected if the dark matter and galaxies were anchored together. Most of the galaxies apparently have sailed far away from the collision. "This result is a puzzle," said astronomer James Jee of the University of California in Davis, lead author of paper about the results available online in The Astrophysical Journal. "Dark matter is not behaving as predicted, and it's not obviously clear what is going on. It is difficult to explain this Hubble observation with the current theories of galaxy formation and dark matter.""

The dark matter core does not defy explanation. The dark matter core is not a puzzle. The dark matter core is not difficult to explain. It is obviously clear what is going on.

There is nothing to 'leave behind'. Non-baryonic dark matter was never anchored to the matter in the first place. There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

 

[origin]

The following experiment will provide evidence of the correctness of pilot-wave theory:

Great, now what experiment or data will disprove your idea?

 

[origin]

I didn't ask you for excuses. I asked you to explain why the 'dark matter' is being left behind when galaxy clusters collide.

Do you have reading comprehension problems along with your physics comprehension problems? What part of 'it is a mystery at this point', did you not understand?

 

[gravitational_aether]

Great, now what experiment or data will disprove your idea?

If the results are not as expected then the aether displacement explanation as to what occurs in a 'delayed-choice quantum eraser' experiment will have to be revisited.

 

[gravitational_aether]

Do you have reading comprehension problems along with your physics comprehension problems? What part of 'it is a mystery at this point', did you not understand?

It's only a mystery to those who lack the comprehension to be able to move beyond believing in the made up absurd nonsense about non-baryonic dark matter being anchored to matter in the first place.

'Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in NASA Hubble Image'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/mar/HQ_12-068_Hubble_Dark_Core.html

"This technique revealed the dark matter in Abell 520 had collected into a "dark core," containing far fewer galaxies than would be expected if the dark matter and galaxies were anchored together. Most of the galaxies apparently have sailed far away from the collision. "This result is a puzzle," said astronomer James Jee of the University of California in Davis, lead author of paper about the results available online in The Astrophysical Journal. "Dark matter is not behaving as predicted, and it's not obviously clear what is going on. It is difficult to explain this Hubble observation with the current theories of galaxy formation and dark matter.""

The dark matter core does not defy explanation. The dark matter core is not a puzzle. The dark matter core is not difficult to explain. It is obviously clear what is going on.

There is nothing to 'leave behind'. Non-baryonic dark matter was never anchored to the matter in the first place. There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

 

[origin]

Well, I have to take a break again or I will get myself banned. It is like trying to have a discussion with a box of rocks.

 

[gravitational_aether]

Well, I have to take a break again or I will get myself banned. It is like trying to have a discussion with a box of rocks.

The 'dark matter' core is only a mystery to those who lack the comprehension to be able to move beyond believing in the made up absurd nonsense about non-baryonic dark matter being anchored to matter in the first place.

'Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in NASA Hubble Image'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/mar/HQ_12-068_Hubble_Dark_Core.html

"This technique revealed the dark matter in Abell 520 had collected into a "dark core," containing far fewer galaxies than would be expected if the dark matter and galaxies were anchored together. Most of the galaxies apparently have sailed far away from the collision. "This result is a puzzle," said astronomer James Jee of the University of California in Davis, lead author of paper about the results available online in The Astrophysical Journal. "Dark matter is not behaving as predicted, and it's not obviously clear what is going on. It is difficult to explain this Hubble observation with the current theories of galaxy formation and dark matter.""

The dark matter core does not defy explanation. The dark matter core is not a puzzle. The dark matter core is not difficult to explain. It is obviously clear what is going on.

There is nothing to 'leave behind'. Non-baryonic dark matter was never anchored to the matter in the first place. There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.