Dark Matter explained by PP
- Thread starter D-9
- Start date
So?.. you just quote the same as the people who said that there were no bubbles. I am obviously going to believe myself based on my history on forums.
You keep talking about bubbles this and bubbles that. Any time you see anything in an astronomical picture that is sphereical you get all giddy and say look it proves my theory. This is just more evidence of your delusional attitude.
In about Feb 2004 I predicted them. I contacted NASA, and asked if Pioneer was slowing down, they said no. Then about Nov 2004 NASA announced that Pioneer was slowing down. They had checked DATA going back to about 1980, and found something amiss. I also said that there was one around the Galaxy and it was found. I said that Voyager would move into them...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WeaYlwU_RQ
I predict them because I have Gravity as a push, and Magnetism as an outward push. I have no attractive forces in my theory.
PP, I've gone over your two responses, and this is what I have so far.
If I understand you correctly, every particle has a hole in its center, and this hole is negative mass and thus dark matter (making it magnetic)?
Again, if I understand you, this hole is identical in volume to the rest of the particle - so by volume 50% of a particle is dark matter and 50% is regular matter? Does this volume ratio hold over to mass ratio, thus making the 1 + -1 = 0 of mass/energy come into play with positive and negative mass?
One thing I'm confused about is how do you fall into a hole that has no attractive forces? If I go outside and dig a hole I'll fall into the hole because gravity attracts me down there whenever I go over it, at least according to the standard model. Or to paraphrase Newton's first law of motion, an external force needs to act on me in order to change my velocity so I go into the hole, even if that force isn't gravity per se. Or does your model not coincide with Newtonian physics either?
You talked about particles scaling up and down, and this is inflation (or deflation depending on direction?). When you get inflation you get your famous
1 + -1 = 0
2 + -2 = 0
3 + -3 = 0 right?
So the first particle would undergo inflation up to X, and this particle is the universe?
You've talked about negative mass, and from what I understand it's a theoretical concept that states that it is the same as mass but opposite sign - analogous to electron-positron. So negative mass should have a repulsive force proportional to an attractive force it would have if it were positive mass. Is this how your negative mass works, or does it work differently? You also talked about how there is no attracting forces in your model, please explain.
I'm not sure I'm reading your post right, but it sounds like part of your model entails that normal matter squeezes out gravity and becomes dark matter, which will then be "flowing out" (whatever that means, flowing out of the atom?) as magnetism, aka dark matter.
I understand it doesn't have to obey the standard model, all the great revolutionaries went counter to the status quo, but at the same token any hypothesis to gain acceptance still had to account for the observations and data. From what I understand, the greatest fault in rogue physicists is that their pet hypotheses may account for a new or mysterious phenomena but fail at explaining already known phenomena.
For example, as far as I know, all the data on dark matter suggests that it simply doesn't interact with magnetism, and I'm pretty sure magnetic waves interact with other magnetic waves - like forces repel opposite forces attract (whether or not the repelling or attracting is a repelling or attracting force or something else doesn't change the observations).
There's more, but I think that's enough for now, and I think better understanding this will help me understand the rest.
If I understand you correctly, every particle has a hole in its center, and this hole is negative mass and thus dark matter (making it magnetic)?
Again, if I understand you, this hole is identical in volume to the rest of the particle - so by volume 50% of a particle is dark matter and 50% is regular matter? Does this volume ratio hold over to mass ratio, thus making the 1 + -1 = 0 of mass/energy come into play with positive and negative mass?
One thing I'm confused about is how do you fall into a hole that has no attractive forces? If I go outside and dig a hole I'll fall into the hole because gravity attracts me down there whenever I go over it, at least according to the standard model. Or to paraphrase Newton's first law of motion, an external force needs to act on me in order to change my velocity so I go into the hole, even if that force isn't gravity per se. Or does your model not coincide with Newtonian physics either?
You talked about particles scaling up and down, and this is inflation (or deflation depending on direction?). When you get inflation you get your famous
1 + -1 = 0
2 + -2 = 0
3 + -3 = 0 right?
So the first particle would undergo inflation up to X, and this particle is the universe?
You've talked about negative mass, and from what I understand it's a theoretical concept that states that it is the same as mass but opposite sign - analogous to electron-positron. So negative mass should have a repulsive force proportional to an attractive force it would have if it were positive mass. Is this how your negative mass works, or does it work differently? You also talked about how there is no attracting forces in your model, please explain.
I'm not sure I'm reading your post right, but it sounds like part of your model entails that normal matter squeezes out gravity and becomes dark matter, which will then be "flowing out" (whatever that means, flowing out of the atom?) as magnetism, aka dark matter.
I understand it doesn't have to obey the standard model, all the great revolutionaries went counter to the status quo, but at the same token any hypothesis to gain acceptance still had to account for the observations and data. From what I understand, the greatest fault in rogue physicists is that their pet hypotheses may account for a new or mysterious phenomena but fail at explaining already known phenomena.
For example, as far as I know, all the data on dark matter suggests that it simply doesn't interact with magnetism, and I'm pretty sure magnetic waves interact with other magnetic waves - like forces repel opposite forces attract (whether or not the repelling or attracting is a repelling or attracting force or something else doesn't change the observations).
There's more, but I think that's enough for now, and I think better understanding this will help me understand the rest.
You get bumped into the hole from behind. Like water bumps into a plughole. A boat floating some distance from a plughole will have a low force at the front, and a heavy force at the back. This low/high balance is all you need to make a hole look like it is attractive.
Yes the volume must add up to zero total, so the hole must be -1 to match the +1. In a dim you could get away with -1, because it could be scale not volume... I'm not totally sure which.
Yes the first particle is the Universe, because zero can be any scale. This means that the Universe already contains the -1 particles, because you are in the -1 hole, all you have to do is add the +1 particles at first.
Negative mass is a hole, you get bumped into the hole, so its negative. Any time that a particle is negative it is a hole. If it has mass in science then its a hole full of gravity. So you need to decide if to use the mass or not. But being as Quantum Physics needs to be precise, it is better to ignore the mass, and give Gravity the mass instead. Then you are being precise.
I have no attractive forces because they are a paradox like chicken, and egg. You shouldn't allow it to happen. There are about 3 paradox in attraction (cause and effect are the wrong way around, you need a pull on a sphere, but sphere are easier to push, and you need a particle that knows it has found another particle.) In fact it was this reason that I didn't allow the paradox that caused me to predict Dark Matter bubbles. I never allow any paradox in my theory. If you think of a paradox as energy, the universe doesn't use energy where it doesn't need to. So being bumped into a hole is more efficient than a new particle having to be created to pull you into the hole (The Graviton for example). Gravity is more efficient than a Higgs Boson as well, and we have also got rid of Space-Time bending, because a flow bends. So that's 2 particles, and physics less already.
Magnets repel each other, but my holes bump one another, so its perfect. You just need to imagine the flow direction.
Last edited:
It has nothing to do with gravity. The word bubble appeared and you just got all giddy again.
There is no bubble around the galaxy. There is roughly spherical concentration of dark matter theorized but it is hardly a bubble. Like I have said before if there is anything roughly spherical you excitedly start shouting bubbles.
Which essentially proves your ideas are rubbish.
Origin, you should change your name to Origin of Stupidity.