Go Back   Science Forums Biology Forum Molecular Biology Forum Physics Chemistry Forum > General Science Forums > Physics Forum
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Physics Forum Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian prediction

NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian prediction - Physics Forum

NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian prediction - Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-16-2003, 08:48 PM
SDR
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian prediction



[Only registered users see links. ] (Nick Keighley) wrote in message
news:<8ad2cfb3.0307140633.6f1245da@posting.google. com>...

Doing this is the key to finally spreading acceptance of the "true"
theory: That is, instead of trying to fit observations to a theory,
follow the theory's predictions wherever they lead. Inflationary
theory has led to contradictory interpretations and observations
which can only be "explained" by science fiction and magic (that
is, violations of the laws of physics). It's time to begin from an
implosion model and see where that leads. For example:

If a particle could be proposed which would have so little mass
that the pull of gravity would be infinitesimal (proportional to
its mass, obviously)... such a particle might illustrate the motions
of the "rest of the" matter which makes up the universe--by its
escaping all but the most infinitesimal effects of gravity: Happily,
such a particle actually exists in our universe. We call it the photon.

Because, like all the other particles, it too is a construct of matter,
it too is individually imploding exactly like all the other constructs/
particles of matter (i.e. individually shrinking). But because of its
infinitesimal mass, the photon does not "move" exactly as the
other (more massive) particles move--all of which particles are
"moving" collectively (the entirety of the universe) in the direction
of implosion (rather than right/left/up/down). Therefore the "speed"
at which a photon is "left behind" by this motion in the direction of
implosion is also a measure (actually just a hint, for reasons not
requiring inclusion here) of the present speed at which the universe
is imploding.

Just note that (the upper limits of ) this "speed of light" is NOT
constant everywhere across the entire universe, but only CONSTANT
in identical mediums: This immediately tells us that when it's moving
through stronger/more resistant fields it's being dragged along/slowed
down. We see this effect in how light is slowed down when crossing a
"heavy" medium and then speeding up after exiting the denser field
(seemingly violating conservation of energy law, if interpreted as
happening in an inflationary universe). But it self-evidently makes no
such a violation, when viewed as happening in an imploding universe
model (in which it is not the photon that's moving at all but the rest
of the universe), when it has merely finished passing by/through a
stronger field and exited, newly freed of its "slowing/grabbing" effect.

A "closer" measurement of the imploding universe can be "seen"
in the gravitational instability it imparts to galactic structures:
If there indeed were "dark matter" causing the observed anomalies
in galactic spin... one would expect it to be at least as consistently
spread as other galactic matter (stars/dust clusters, et al): One
would then observe galaxies which would attain structures stable
enough to match those of solar systems (some of them no doubt
even developing "shepherding" black holes that would produce
stable "rings" of matter--not unlike the rings of Saturn). Spirals
form because of gravitational instabilities in galaxies which are
undergoing implosion and their material is spread over distances
just large enough to be also displaying a tiny but significant Hubble
(constant) effect... An effect which makes the farthest stars/clouds
manifest their inability to escape the galaxy into a conservation of
their angular momentum--the same effect of the spinning skater
drawing his arms closer to his body: The outer stars do not fly off
from the galaxy yet still "speed up" ... and this instability sweeps
inwardly from the galactic outer regions, evidently NOT in an
absolutely stable gravitational curve (no pun) that creates the
"bunched up" sweeps of spiral galaxies (mixing faster with slower
moving objects). [Ellipticals and other atypical galaxies may be
explained by anomalies such as collisions or the galactic age/stage
of their evolution, but at least the implosion model does not have to
account for a uniform law of gravitational stability ... which the
"dark matter" proposition does require but yet does not advance
--i.e. the crucial factor is that "dark matter" galaxies should not
produce spiral arms, implosion model galaxies must produce spirals.]

There are many such measurements which make the implosion
model and real-world observations mutually supporting. Real-world
observations not only do NOT support the Big Bang/inflationary
model but actually contradict it across an increasingly surprising
number of disciplines---forcing its acolytes into ever more twisted
and convoluted, counter-intuitive rationalizations to accommodate
the two together ... every one of them growing ever more and more
logically warped/warping with time... "dark matter" / "dark energy"
.... multi dimensions, string theory, time-travel and other nonsense
being just the latest mathematical-only truths advanced in support
of this demonically-(en)forced agreement.


At its roots, cosmology seeks to research the origins of the
cosmos. And the cosmos is made up of matter in all its forms.
The origin of the universe is the origin of the subatomic particles.
To understand something is to understand how it came about:
If you do not understand that, you're just a pictures-drawing
artist... and not a true scientist. [This is the failing of conventional
relativity: It is a very useful map, but cartographers can never
tell us how the Prussians came to be Prussians--I might agree
with you. But I do not think we should replace our scientific quest
with elegant maps: Conventional relativity fails as a forensic science
and my interest is in understanding the universe, not mapping it.]


The Big Bang model posits a "life time" of some 13 billion
years. This reminds me of when theorists used to believe that
the universe was 4,000 years old.

I say to you: Bunk! Posit 13 trillion years and then we'll discuss
it: This 13 billion years or so absolutist depiction of "time" defies
real-world observations about the effect of a continually-applied
force (gravity): which we are now "seeing" in the discovery that
the so-called (interpreted only) "expansion" of the universe as
speeding up! [Time is a human/arbitrary compromise/measurement
of any number of arbitrarily-picked local motions against some other
arbitrarily-picked motions... all of then necessarily picked from/in
the "present" .... but the motions of the universe, as you must
know by now from the hints provided by the speeding up Hubble
constant, are speeding up in ways which we can no longer assume
only apply to the Hubble constant: "Time" as we measure it
today is most probably impossible for us to relate to "time" many
billions of years ago or many billions of years from now. It would
be safer to assume that, if some "motions" of the universe (the
Hubble constant) are NOT stable across "time" then many more of
are also not stable, and perhaps all of them are not stable. And
since we measure "time" by arbitrarily picking "this" motion and
"timing" it against some other such motions... "time" becomes
meaningless as soon as we start talking about applying it across
time.]

This "meaninglessness" of time has one crucial implication: It
tells us that the universe does not have to be "infinite" in order
for it to approximate infinity: Finally we have a model of existence
(the universe) which does not violate the conversation of energy law:

Think of it in terms of the old children's paradox (in which a runner
of a finite length can yet never finish his run when he switches to
running half as fast every time he gets half way to the finish)... the
universe is likewise forever "shrinking" (requiring less energy as it
continues). It's as if the runner may be forever running faster and
faster with time but also growing smaller and smaller. [The runner
himself does not know he is running faster, since "fast" is a "timing"
between motions which are adjusting (speeding and slowing all about
him in perfect harmony/agreement for the most part)... so it will seem
to him that the universe (his course, or lifetime) is a steady eternity,
or pretty close to it--although we "god-like" beings know it's not.]

Yes, it will remain a seemingly finite distance to run. But looking
back from the finish... it will seem an eternity: We will yet still
"vanish into nothingness" eventually (the universe really being a
finite quantity of energy/matter that is forever being spent)... it's
just that you cannot take your present-day watch and glibly say, "13
billion years from now" because your present-day watch can not
measure "past time" just as it can not measure "future time." [Think
clearly/clearly understand.] Apparently unsuspected by him: the watch
of the imploding little runner is speeding up exactly as the so-
called "expansion" of the universe is speeding up.

But whether you think of it in terms of "time" or in terms of the
Hubble constant: This means that 13 billion years (our billions) is
just a few "ancient" minutes (their minutes). And here only is
where an entire universe can finally fit quite comfortably within
the laws of physics.


Rather, smell it. That might not be your brain acting up.


You needn't get into hard drugs: Any anti-gas pill's do ya.


No, not "space" but a "mass" (infinitesimal maybe, but
substantial enough to make up the universe of matter).


From pill-making: It's all a matter of squeezing structure
from available resources. [Hint: Most particles are "space."]

But seriously: Existence is all that exists (it's neither created
nor destroyed). Matter is, in our experience, the stuff we touch
(and so you're talking, E=MC^2, of stuff made up of so much
concentrated "primordial spatial mass" that there's really no
hope of us ever "touching" (upon) any of it). Therefore, it doesn't
really matter whether you speak of "something always having
existed" or say "our everything really consists of nothingness"
as long as you keep the notions constant and separate from each
other (that is: whatever exists has always existed, and Something
has never come into existence from Nothing, Something will
never become Nothingness).

You can still understand the mechanism that HAD TO have
produced matter (the part of the universe we can touch) by
understanding the laws of thermodynamics... and refusing to
let fools tell you that the laws of physics cease to apply
here/there.


For the reasons discussed before: The imploding universe "begins"
from a larger region (already), and this will tend to be able to
achieve more "lumpiness" (a richer structure) than if it began
from a pin-prick area (Big Bang). Is this really that hard for you
to understand, old boy?!?!


As long as you require me to go: It's really up to you,
you know. [See, this is why I'd shoot myself rather than
go into the teaching profession!]


Think "evolution." From large and diffused, slow-moving
structures... to tiny and concentrated, fast-moving ones.
Now you understand the only required principle to understand
to grasp the reason why there is at all a universe.

Virtual particles in the present universe are those which are
so short-lived as to "seem" but virtual. [Remember our "clocks"
discussion? Well, the first generation of so of "particles" in
the new-minted universe that managed to organize themselves
into relatively stable existence... that was the generation of our
theoretical "gravitons." Everything is still made up of gravitons
but if you know anything about nuclear processes you know it
takes place only among the top-most "nuclear" subparticles:
This interplay of fission/fusion never affects those theoretical
"gravitons" (which is why gravity is unaffected by any nuclear
processes and stars, moons, and black holes display proportionate
gravitational effects). Currents of those gravitons are gravity.
They're also something else in terms of quanta: Energy "bits."]


Think of the universe as the mother of all black holes: What
sort of structure would it have? Look about you: That's it.
The universe is imploding, but because the forms of matter are
NOT fundamental (fundamentally as solid as a glass marble is
to us) they are all in flux ("evenly" losing gravitons): Yes the
universe as an absolute whole is shrinking, but at the level of
every construct of matter inside it. This means that to us here
inside the universe... everything will seem to remain pretty
much the same relatively.

The one great hint of what's happening comes from the fact that
once the primordial spatial mass began to obey the normal laws
of gravitation... it began to tear itself apart into discreet bits
(or particles, if you wish), necessarily creating "space" (really
nothing more elaborate than "distance" between themselves). [And,
as anyone with the least amount of intelligence must realize: The
farther apart any two bits of matter were... the more "space"
(distance) there has to be between them. This is a process that
has never ceased across all the generations of matter organization
and can be seen with great awe today magnified by astronomical
distances into the Hubble constant (particular generations of
matter constructs, or particles, may put the process on temporary
hold or slow it down but should not stop it altogether... because
of conservation or energy reasons).] This is also the beginning of
chaos and the "lumpiness" of matter distribution across the cosmos.


I shall never understand the inability of some people to fail
to understand something as simple as the fact that the implosion
model explains HOW and WHY the galaxies are moving apart
and does NOT say they aren't moving apart!

Sir: The galaxies really ARE moving apart. The red-shift is
real and is but one more proof the implosion model is true.


START QUOTE

Recent COBE and WMAP data only "proves" this even more
strongly and thoroughly than ever: To put it so simply that
even ants will be able to understand this: "The smaller an
explosion the more structurally homogeneous the organization
of its results will be."

As all astronomers know... our cosmos is about as lumpy as a
structure can get. This is absolutely inconsistent with a
"singular" pin-prick Big Bang episode (and demands impossible
warped and twisted explanations placing galaxies within 1/2
billion years from the Big Bang, among other things). However,
our cosmos is completely consistent with a universe that
"begins" with/from an "infinite" (for our purposes here)
spatial expanse and over unimaginably immense distances of
time (not just 13 lousy billion years) contracts (or,
implodes) into what we "see" today.

Sure enough: The COBE and WMAP "picture" of the cosmic
microwave background radiation show a universe nowhere as
uniform as Big Bang theorists would have you believe IN
SPITE OF THE COBE/WMAP RESULTS [the Roentgen
Satellite, or ROSAT (an X-ray astronomy instrument has been
mapping the sky with a sensitivity/resolution far superior
to previous X-ray instruments)... START QUOTE: ROSAT has
detected extended blobs of X-ray emission that lie between
the discrete X-ray sources. Hasinger* and Truemper* propose
that these blobs are actually clusters of quasars so distant
that ROSAT cannot separate the emissions of individual ones.
Assuming the universe is about 13 billion years old, these
clusters appear to be some eight to 10 billion light-years
distant and 15 to 30 million light-years across. This is
troubling news for cosmologists. They already have their
hands full explaining how clumpy structures of galaxies
could have evolved from a presumably smooth big bang. The
existence of large, organized clusters of quasars "would
pose an even bigger problem for big bang cosmology,"
Hasinger notes. END QUOTE]

No kidding.

But let's not doubt for an moment that there are already
many superbly mediocre theorists working overtime to spew
out of their "dark" little minds explanations and other
rationalizations as magnificently twisted and warped as the
"dark energy" and "dark matter" ones. It's almost as if
their greatest fear is that were the universe to be
explained in all its elegance once and for all... they might
lose their jobs. And, unfortunately, their jobs happen to
converge with their authority. [Might be why the greatest
changes seem to happen with the changing of the guard.]

* One of the goals of the mapping has been to resolve the
X-ray background into discrete components and determine
their nature. On January 15 at the annual meeting of the
American Astronomical Society in Philadelphia, Joachim
Truemper and Guenther Hasinger of the Max Planck Institute
for Extraterrestrial Physics told scientists that ROSAT had
revealed far more quasars than could be detected before
--about 100 quasars per square degree. This implies the
presence of about four million quasars over the whole sky,
enough to account for 40 percent of the X-ray background,
Hasinger estimates.

"Now you tell me how you know that the cosmic background
radiation is a decreasing effect... and not a temperature rising?"

END QUOTE


Stick you hand into The Eighth Dimension, pull out a
Haklemock Monster and let's dissect it, Mister Spock.
(The easiest way to cheat somebody is with numbers.)


Never mind Nobels. Just refrain from show me the
instruments of torture... and I'll be happy enough.

S D Rodrian
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
confirmed , dark , matter , prediction , rodrian


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Black Holes--a theory jason@smkzone.com Physics Forum 9 02-09-2008 05:00 AM
What is Gravity? sdr@sdrodrian.com Physics Forum 1 01-27-2008 02:53 PM
The Achilles Heel of String Theory. S D Rodrian Physics Forum 7 07-08-2006 02:40 PM
The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian SDR Physics Forum 5 02-16-2005 07:41 AM
NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian prediction SDR Physics Forum 7 07-12-2003 10:30 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Molecular Station | All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.21274 seconds with 16 queries