First dark matter galaxy discovered

reply to post by 4nsicphd

I think you are confusing it with a photino, which is the lightest neutrolino and qualifies as a WIMP, or weakly interascting massive particle, and is a candidate for dark matter.

Nope, no confusion here; I'm capable of reading. Here is the article

What if photons have mass and density (m/ λ ) but that their density was
less than that of Space (yes, the aether of Space). If the photon was less dense than Space
then it could achieve the speed of light and still have mass. The mass of a photon can be
determined in the following manner:

It doesn't explicitly state that this is a proven thing, but the the article is pretty damn interesting in my opinion. Especially given that we still don't fully understand the nature of a photon or what it really is. Take a read and let me know what you think of it. I'm still trying to digest the material and look up more information in this regard.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

The only reason this crackpot gets published in that IEEE Journal for Plasma Pseudoscience, is that he started it and is still the co-editor and gets to pick what articles are published. The COBE satellite data released in 1992 pretty well demolished both Peraat and Alfvin as cosmologists with anything valuable to say..Epstein et al., The origin of deuterium, Nature, Vol. 263, September 16, 1976 point out that if proton fluxes with energies greater than 500 MeV were intense enough to produce the observed levels of deuterium, they would also produce about 1000 times more gamma rays than are observed.

The COBE data?

You mean this data?

COBE Satellite Finds No Hint of Excess in the Cosmic Microwave Spectrum, Physics Today, 1990 (128K).

COBE Sows Cosmological Confusion, Science, vol. 257, 28, 1992 (356K).

Looks like it supports EU theory to me.


Lerner shows the Big Bang nucleosynthesis proposals to be a joke.

The pseudoscience is dark matter, dark flows, and pink unicorns.




[edit on 30-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

OK, that's it. I didn't spend 23 years in school to waste time debating uneducated hucksters who have fallen in love with the latest pseudoscientific woo, particularly since here on Nevis it's 83 degrees F. I think I'll crack open a Caribe and watch the glowing ball of hydrogen fusion sink below Nevis Peak and into the sea behind Nick's Cove on the Atlantic side. Sure beats Cambridge where it's 26 F. And it sure beats debating guys who think a current can flow in a vacuum with a 4 electron per cubic centimeter density at 1 AU and no mechanism for charge seperation.
You can cut and paste summary headlines from the popular press all day. It doesn't mean you're smart, just adept at cuttung and pasting, which apparently is the substitute for intelligence and/or education in this thread.Oh-oh, out of Caribe. Have to settle for a Brinley's, the locally made rum, and orange juice.

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

OK, that's it. I didn't spend 23 years in school to waste time debating uneducated hucksters who have fallen in love with the latest pseudoscientific woo, particularly since here on Nevis it's 83 degrees F. I think I'll crack open a Caribe and watch the glowing ball of hydrogen fusion sink below Nevis Peak and into the sea behind Nick's Cove on the Atlantic side. Sure beats Cambridge where it's 26 F. And it sure beats debating guys who think a current can flow in a vacuum with a 4 electron per cubic centimeter density at 1 AU and no mechanism for charge seperation.
You can cut and paste summary headlines from the popular press all day. It doesn't mean you're smart, just adept at cuttung and pasting, which apparently is the substitute for intelligence and/or education in this thread.Oh-oh, out of Caribe. Have to settle for a Brinley's, the locally made rum, and orange juice.

I didn't spend 33 years of my tax paying life to be lied to by government funded stooges.

Modern cosmology is an absolute joke.

Its a fraud.

I don't like being defrauded.

How are those gravitational waves coming along? No word yet from the LIGO?

Oh, how about the CDMS detector? Finding anything good?

Wait, how about that gravity probe B? conclusively prove frame dragging without a load of hypothetical modeling laid over the top of its data? LOL

Total fraud.





[edit on 30-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by 4nsicphd

 

I

I think you are confusing it with a photino, which is the lightest neutrolino and qualifies as a WIMP, or weakly interascting massive particle, and is a candidate for dark matter.

Nope, no confusion here; I'm capable of reading. Here is the article

What if photons have mass and density (m/ λ ) but that their density was
less than that of Space (yes, the aether of Space). If the photon was less dense than Space
then it could achieve the speed of light and still have mass. The mass of a photon can be
determined in the following manner:

It doesn't explicitly state that this is a proven thing, but the the article is pretty damn interesting in my opinion. Especially given that we still don't fully understand the nature of a photon or what it really is. Take a read and let me know what you think of it. I'm still trying to digest the material and look up more information in this regard.

'm still not ready to throw Lorentze out the window. His transformation equation doesn't say, "except when density is less than some value. As for the aether, no one has used the term seriously since the Michelson-Morley experiment.As for the article, it didn't have to go through peer review to get published, since it's the author's Journal.

Here's a personal favorite of mine:





Ahhh the famous Einstein cross.

Supposedly caused by "gravitational lensing"

This is what a gravitational lens is supposed to look like:



Modern cosmologists would have us believe that what you are looking at is actually ONE quasar lensed into 4 images LOL!

They actually believe this stuff.

The quasar(s) change shape, intensity, move, expand, etc.. which is nigh impossible under any proposed theory of gravitational lensing.

As you can see by the proposed theoretical image, they are supposed to be static and oblong, not point like and variable.

They have resorted to claiming a bunch of mini-gravitational lenses create the 4 quasar image.

TOTAL FRAUD

DO THEY THINK I'M RETARDED?

WHO PAYS FOR THIS STUFF?!!!

YOU DO!!

Guess what? If that image is NOT one quasar, but instead it is the obvious 4 quasars it looks like, it absolutely destroys the big bang theory.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

OK, that's it. I didn't spend 23 years in school to waste time debating uneducated hucksters who have fallen in love with the latest pseudoscientific woo, particularly since here on Nevis it's 83 degrees F. I think I'll crack open a Caribe and watch the glowing ball of hydrogen fusion sink below Nevis Peak and into the sea behind Nick's Cove on the Atlantic side. Sure beats Cambridge where it's 26 F. And it sure beats debating guys who think a current can flow in a vacuum with a 4 electron per cubic centimeter density at 1 AU and no mechanism for charge seperation.
You can cut and paste summary headlines from the popular press all day. It doesn't mean you're smart, just adept at cuttung and pasting, which apparently is the substitute for intelligence and/or education in this thread.Oh-oh, out of Caribe. Have to settle for a Brinley's, the locally made rum, and orange juice.

I didn't spend 33 years of my tax paying life to be lied to by government funded stooges.

And how do you think your heroes, Alfvin, Peratt, et al were funded when they held university positions?

My funding comes from licensing fees for technology used in forensics and imaging and my forensic contract work here in St. Kitts/Nevis.. That means I no longer have to deal with grant proposals.

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
And how do you think your heroes, Alfvin, Peratt, et al were funded when they held university positions?

My funding comes from licensing fees for technology used in forensics and imaging and my forensic contract work here in St. Kitts/Nevis.. That means I no longer have to deal with grant proposals.

At least they aren't liars that bend over backwards to kiss editorial board azz.

That's how real science is done buddy.

Progress comes from the visionaries, not the conformists.

You think Darwin would get research grants and publishing today?

HELL NO!




[edit on 30-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1

I'll do my science, you do your fantasy.

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
I'll do my science, you do your fantasy.

Oh come on!

I was so looking forward to your explanation for Q2237+030.

Perhaps some new entity is responsible for it!

In keeping with the "dark" tradition, lets call it "dark bullshat" or "dark horsehockey" or "dark fairy dust".

AND I ALSO PROPOSE in keeping with neutronium and other hypothetical nonsense, it completely violate all known laws of nuclear chemistry!

See, now all I need is a doctorate and I can get thousands in research grants and a new corner office!

I should have been a hypothetical physicist.

reply to post by 4nsicphd

'm still not ready to throw Lorentze out the window. His transformation equation doesn't say, "except when density is less than some value. As for the aether, no one has used the term seriously since the Michelson-Morley experiment.As for the article, it didn't have to go through peer review to get published, since it's the author's Journal.

It was only postulated as a 'what if', but an interesting what if nonetheless. I wouldn't mind seeing any research done on this to test for it's possibility, but I haven't been able to find much information on it. Not sure if the Aether discussed in the article is the same Aether of that experiment cited or if it's this: Quantum Aether Dynamics - There is a lot of information on this site, I'm still going through this as well.

Originally posted by sirnex

It was only postulated as a 'what if', but an interesting what if nonetheless. I wouldn't mind seeing any research done on this to test for it's possibility, but I haven't been able to find much information on it. Not sure if the Aether discussed in the article is the same Aether of that experiment cited or if it's this: Quantum Aether Dynamics - There is a lot of information on this site, I'm still going through this as well.

See?

Now you're on to something here buddy.

Common sense tells us that light propagates as a wave and that all waves require a medium to travel through.

Einstein's theory of light is another joke.

An aether MUST exist in some form or another for EM waves to propagate as they do.

If an aether exists, it is highly unlikely that we have "expanding" space, black holes, dark matter, and other such nonsense.

My personal favorite aether theory:

www.glafreniere.com...

I like it because its simple.

Nature is not some chaotic disaster of a mess, it is elegant and simple.

I also like Mills theory:

www.blacklightpower.com...

Mills has actually produced lab verified results meeting predictions with his theory producing "over unity" reactions by utilizing a lower ground state of hydrogen than is thought possible in special relativity.





[edit on 30-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

Here's something neat.

Looking at lafreniere's standing wave model and comparing it to this supposed image of an electron that was just recently achieved, I think we can see some striking similarities.



That certainly looks like it could be a standing wave to me.

I don't know what hypotheticals went into acquiring the image of the electron, so I don't know if that "really" is what an electron looks like or if its just a bunch of baloney, but it certainly is interesting that it matches Lafreniere's model in appearance so closely.



I'd say that's a hell of a prediction on Lafreniere's part. Of course, modern science will write him off as a crank.



[edit on 30-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1

An aether MUST exist in some form or another for EM waves to propagate as they do.

If an aether exists, it is highly unlikely that we have "expanding" space, black holes, dark matter, and other such nonsense.

Exactly what I think as well. A lot of people don't realize that the current standard model is based upon certain assumptions being true. Lately we've been observer an ever increasing amount of phenomena that the standard model just can't account for and so we delve into the land of invented conveniences in order to tightly hang onto that model. Our standard model relies on Einsteins description of gravity to be correct, yet it's obvious to be wrong in my opinion. I mean come on... Steel balls and rubber sheets? What was he smoking when he concocted that BS?

It is of my opinion that the universe is much more expansive and older than we can conceive of right now and that we only postulate a beginning due to our finite status in comparison to reality. I have a feeling that we're someday going to discover ever more finer states of matter than what is currently known and that the universe cycles throughout these different states over immense timescales. I have a problem with the interpretation of the CMB and I'm more leaning towards this showing a vaster structure of matter that is just diffused due to lack of powerful enough telescopes to focus on galaxies that far away. The amount of mature galaxies we keep discovering near the so called 'beginning of time' is pretty astounding to me. I personally believe as we develop better telescopes the so called "age of the universe" will get "older" as we discover even more mature galaxies. I also remember reading about very new and young galaxies not that far from our own. Obviously we don't truly 'know' how these thing's are formed, but the EU theory does provide a beautiful alternative that is verifiable and observed in lab/simulations.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Here's something neat.

Looking at lafreniere's standing wave model and comparing it to this supposed image of an electron that was just recently achieved, I think we can see some striking similarities.



That certainly looks like it could be a standing wave to me.

I don't know what hypotheticals went into acquiring the image of the electron, so I don't know if that "really" is what an electron looks like or if its just a bunch of baloney, but it certainly is interesting that it matches Lafreniere's model in appearance so closely.





[edit on 30-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

I thought that same exact thing when I viewed that site!

*edit

I just read through the first page and I really like the theory. Seems to explain some things about QM that seem "weird", like wave/particle duality. Of course, I'm only reading in to that as it doesn't explicitly state this on that one page. Going to look through the rest, got me interested in it now! Thanks.

[edit on 30-12-2009 by sirnex]

*edit

The second page shows this:



Rotate that so the 'flow' *don't know how to describe it* is moving upwards and it's pretty damn close to the video I saw of the electron. Damn that's scary sh*t!

[edit on 30-12-2009 by sirnex]

*edit

My bad, so the 'flow' is going down, not up. Here is a link to that video as well. video

[edit on 30-12-2009 by sirnex]

reply to post by sirnex


What you're looking at in the film is the energy distribution of the electron.

That matches what Lafreniere proposes very nicely.

As the waves move up and down, you'd see the most energy where the waves peak and fall, the least energy would be observed at the point between each wave peak.

So you're not going to see the waves moving up and down in the electron video.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by sirnex

 

What you're looking at in the film is the energy distribution of the electron.

That matches what Lafreniere proposes very nicely.

As the waves move up and down, you'd see the most energy where the waves peak and fall, the least energy would be observed at the point between each wave peak.

So you're not going to see the waves moving up and down in the electron video.

Yea, I figured that part. What I was interested in was the "flow" itself, I suppose that's the "Doppler Effect" described by Lafreniere. It looks like that same effect is taking place in the video of the electron, or maybe it just appears that way to me? lol Either way, still pretty damn convincing to me so far and I'm really loving the beauty of his theory so far.

its my turn to ask layman questions.

We have seen that relativistic particles can exist in multiple places at the same time, and that observation determines thier position.

Is it possible to explain the wave particle functions of relativistic particles travelling through space as:

particles existing as a function of probability at all points between emmision and observation up to just prior to observation with the wave function remaining dependant upon curvature of the space it travels through and the medium that it is measured?

this would explain why C is independant upon the direction or spped of the emitter or reciever.

just a thought

reply to post by sirnex


Finnnalllylyyyyy haha !! Hey i love u for this.. and trust me im not taking this out of context in relation to the subject at hand here...

Lately we've been observer an ever increasing amount of phenomena that the standard model just can't account for

and shall i tell you why the standard model is in fact WRONG?

becaus it never EVER EVER EVER factord in YOU!

You see my good sirex i do in fact like you tho stubbon as you may be! but thats not a problem and i very much welcome it.. here let me show you

We "humans" consist of matter.. yet we also OBSERVE matter correct?

so what is our main problem when dealing with such things as gravity and other crazy things we see??

reply to post by wx4caster


More or less..

but its gets complex.. because light only travels at the speed of light becuase of the obvervation of light.. lets do a trick shall we..

If i THINK im going to mars.. then i go to mars faster than it would techincaly take me to "phyiscaly" get to mars..

is the light in my head going at the same speed it would take me to GET to mars physicaly?? if i was traveling at the speed of light?

ponder that a while..

[edit on 1-1-2010 by 13579]

Just so you know speed is only relitive to the distance from point a to b

thats why we can mesure the speed of light as a constant.

if it is constant that in fact means it can be broken as we are aware of the underlyyig principles of the path the partical/wave is taking..

In order for light to travel does require a PATH.. its "ALLOWED" to go at the speed it is because that are the rules it faces..

there is faster than light my friend.. thats because light its self is indeed on one

or were would it go

The universe is black for a reason.. tho many do miss this part out.

Light came AFTER the creation of the unverise NOT at the same time..

LIGHT is trying to catch up with the expantion of the UNIVERSE .. and it dont help when light fades over time "dims" does it?

If i was to turn on a light in a universe "aka my room" the light bounces off the walls to reveal my ROOM...

when god said let there be LIGHT .. he already made the room !!

funny heh? hehe

[edit on 1-1-2010 by 13579]

grr edit edit lol...

The expansion of the universe is faster than the speed of light

FACT.. if you think other wise you have no clue what your talking about because light is apart of it not the "expantion" of given

duh

[edit on 1-1-2010 by 13579]

truly amazing. i wonder what this can mean.