Two Errors In Relativity

a reply to: Arbitrageur

False. Space is not filled with dark matter. Dark matter is very "clumpy". For example, so far we have found no evidence of dark matter in our own solar system and light travels just fine in our solar system.

NASA is talking about it though.

www.space.com...

www.nasa.gov...

www.space.com...

and they say that Dark Matter is basically everywhere.

www.nbcnews.com...

Your description sounds a bit like the old Steady State theory that had continuous creation of (ordinary) matter in conjunction with the expanding universe.

Since the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation 50 years ago, that theory is no longer viable.

We have strong evidence from various experiments that all of the matter (ordinary and dark) was created during the first few minutes. (Some fraction has transmuted via thermonuclear fusion to other elements heavier than hydrogen and helium). The ratio of dark matter to ordinary matter was fixed by that time.

An aside - dark energy does not transform into dark matter and could not have done so. We know this since dark energy is indeed created along with new space as the universe expands. When the universe was very young, and much smaller, the dark matter totally dominated the mass-energy content. Today, there is over twice as much energy in the dark energy as there is in the dark matter (rest mass x c^2).

Some aspect of the old Steady State model ironically lives on in terms of the creation of new energy (not mass).

www.quora.com...

a reply to: BakedCrusader


You cant see the difference? Dark matter interacts gravitationally but not with light (Photons cant interact with anything making it look invisible.) . Meanwhile we know something's there because it has a gravitational effect on photons. The ether was supposed to provide the medium for light transmission, but wouldn't have interacted gravitationally. This ether would have to just pass photons along unaffected, think of a wave in water the wave isnt going to change directions it will simply continue along its path unless it hits another wave. Dark matter affects the path of photons and worse doesnt seem to have any other interaction.

The assumption of a spatial plenum of luminiferous aether, rather than a spatial vacuum, provided the theoretical medium that was required by wave theories of light.

The concept was the topic of considerable debate throughout its history, as it required the existence of an invisible and infinite material with no interaction with physical objects.

en.wikipedia.org...


I don't see anything in my qoute that would make your description incompatible with that. It's the same concept except today it is not being presented as a medium for EM waves because they already decided that they don't need a medium when they decided that the Aether didn't exist because they decided that the Earth was orbiting the sun.

a reply to: dragonridr

The ether was supposed to provide the medium for light transmission, but wouldn't have interacted gravitationally. This ether would have to just pass photons along unaffected

No, the whole idea behind the MM experiment was that the Aether did affect light, slowing it down when going into the direction of the Ether wind caused by Earths assumed orbital movement.

Hypothetical and hidden

Now, Hooman Davoudiasl of Brookhaven National Laboratory and colleagues at TRIUMF and the University of British Columbia have proposed a new particle dubbed X that could solve both of these mysteries. X has a mass of about 1000 GeV – making it about a thousand times heavier than a proton. This particle can decay to a neutron or to two hypothetical hidden particles called Y and Φ. Both hidden particles would have masses of about 2–3 GeV. Its antiparticle, anti-X, decays to an antineutron or to the pair anti-Y and anti-Φ.

Physicists have tried to try to explain the baryon asymmetry by invoking a violation of the charge–parity (CP) symmetry – the result being that decaying particles are more likely to generate matter than antimatter. CP violation has been observed in laboratories, but the preference for matter is far too small to account for the proportion of matter in the universe.

X also commits CP violation in a way that author Kris Sigurdson of the University of British Columbia calls a "yin yang" decay pattern. While X decays to neutrons more often than anti-X decays to antineutrons, it is balanced by anti-X, which decays to anti-Y and anti-Φ more often than Y and Φ. When almost all particles with an available antiparticle annihilated one another in the early universe, these discrepancies left a chunk of visible matter and a heavier chunk of dark antimatter to form the cosmos.

physicsworld.com...

And then we also have the Michelson/Gale experiment(based on assumed axial rotation) that showed that the Earth is moving through a stationary aether at the speed we expect, OR, the Earth is not rotating and the Aether is moving around it at the speed we expect......

Since this one among others proves the Aether, and MM must therefore prove stationary Earth, we can conclude that the Aether circles the Earth together with all the lights you see above you.......just like it all appears.

Not relative.

a reply to: BakedCrusader

However Michelson and Morley did an experiment in 1887 that pretty much showed that there was no ether, and that light therefore could be understood as not requiring a medium. this understanding has been borne out by many other experiments that are consistent with an absence of the ether.

here are some cool pages that explain the essentials of the michelson-morley experiment:

galileoandeinstein.physics.virgin......

scienceworld.wolfram.com...

Posted by me on Apr, 5 2017 @ 06:56 PM and can be reviewed on page 5 of this thread.

a reply to: Kashai

They didn't show that there was no aether.

They showed that there either was no aether, or that Earth is stationary.

Michelson/Gale and others proved the Aether, so MM showed the earth is stationary. I just explained this.

a reply to: BakedCrusader



Are you trying to imply that somehow we are at the center of the Universe?


Are you trying to state that the Earth is not moving at all?

a reply to: Kashai

The evidence implies this, so yes. What gave it away?

There is way more interesting evidence for us being the center of everything btw. based on the distribution of CBR.

a reply to: BakedCrusader


No not really but otherwise...


www.astronomytrek.com...


Just to start.

a reply to: Kashai

How did he prove that theory?

I am talking about actual modern optical experiments. I am sure you never heard of them before.

a reply to: BakedCrusader


Why would you assume I knew nothing about optics?

In all sincerity your position has been established as false.

Perhaps you should submit for peer review at the scientific periodicals known as "Nature" and "Science".

a reply to: Kashai

Because I have been making this point for some time now and mentioning these experiments by name and you are still oblivious.......

a reply to: BakedCrusader


At the level at which I have involved myself in this thread I can assure you I have read every word.


ATS/Science & Technology contains member who can explain science to an extent that you have been exposed to a Peer Review. By the same token this sub-forum of ATS is not by any sense of the imagination a scientific periodical.


Its a place where some member who prefer anonymity for some reason get together and interact with the public at large.


Which by the way is fascinating in consideration to potential in general from a sociological standpoint.

In all sincerity that you feel Copernicus is wrong is beyond the preview of this Sub-forum of Above Top Secret.com.

a reply to: Kashai

More "empty" talk.

It doesn't matter what I feel. The thread is about errors in relativity. I am pointing out the errors. Are the implications too much for you?

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: BakedCrusader


Its a place where some member who prefer anonymity for some reason get together and interact with the public at large.

It is also a place where one can publish ones science ideas with out having to get permission first.

a reply to: BakedCrusader


I agree with Arbitrageur as well as Dragonridr your position has no basis in fact.


Hence my prior recommendation.

a reply to: graysquirrel


The last Quora link I provided you was presented from Stephen Perrenod, Ph.D. .


Not Dragonridr, Arbitrageur or Kashai.