Dark Energy - IT'S HYDROGEN!

reply to post by jiggerj


No takers on the layering theory, eh, regardless of what makes up the other layers?

reply to post by jiggerj


it seems like your talk of the dark stuff occupying an actual space (in-between of galaxies) is not fruitful.

the energy potential latent within a ball on a hill occupies no space. nevertheless, it is accounted for by dimensional analysis. therefore, when I read your op, I had interpreted it to mean a potential which exists in fewer dimensions than the explicit order.

in that sense, you have had plenty of support in the thread by the way of string theory and/or non-baryonic particles. the "baryon" and "spin-1" refer to the statistics used to calculate the quantum wavefunction. statistics are a type of dimensional analysis. therefore, perhaps your drawings depicting density separation would be better thought of as "heavier" and "lighter" spin states.....separation by degrees of dimensional freedom.

considered in this way, your theory resembles the standard model.

Originally posted by F4guy
That is fusion, a nuclear reaction, which is totally different than oxidation. In a star about the size of our sun, or smaller, there is almost no oxygen involved. It is a proton-proton reaction synthesizing helium from hydrogen. There is some oxygen involved in more massive stars, where neutrons are involved. "Burning" of hydrogen, like in the Hindenburg sisaster, is a chemical oxidation reaction, involving electrons.

As I said, I think the language use is sloppy, but burning is also used to refer to nuclear burning, like hydrogen burning in stars.

If it was up to me I'd stop that usage of "hydrogen burning" and call that fusion. So I agree with you that hydrogen burning should refer to combustion, but in stars it also refers to fusion as seen on this university website for an astronomy course:

www.astro.cornell.edu...

In contrast to the length of time that hydrogen burning takes place (the Main Sequence lifetime), the duration of these other nuclear burning phases is very short.

One way I avoid the confusion is if someone refers to "burning" outside a star, I assume combustion, and if they refer to "burning" inside a star I assume it refers to nuclear fusion.

Originally posted by jiggerj
No takers on the layering theory, eh, regardless of what makes up the other layers?

I see how you get layers in the examples you cite of layers.

But I'm not seeing evidence of layers in the dark energy or dark matter phenomena, so far. That doesn't mean that some layering effects won't be discovered in the future. But as for layering being the cause, as someone else said we have as much evidence the cause is two rabbits mating (meaning not any).

Originally posted by micpsi
Dark matter is a mixture of:
1. non-baryonic matter, all ultimately composed of E8xE8' heterotic superstrings of ordinary matter whose unified forces have the symmetry of E8, and
2. superstrings of shadow matter whose forces have the invariance group E8' and whose spin-1 gauge bosons constitute the dark energy responsible for acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

Nothing more.

LHC ain't found no supersymmetric big bag o' nothin.

reply to post by tgidkp

it seems like your talk of the dark stuff occupying an actual space (in-between of galaxies) is not fruitful.[/quote]

Yup, fell on my face on that one.

the energy potential latent within a ball on a hill occupies no space. nevertheless, it is accounted for by dimensional analysis. therefore, when I read your op, I had interpreted it to mean a potential which exists in fewer dimensions than the explicit order.

This hurt my little brain for a moment. You're talking about energy potential as though it's a thing and not just a possibility. Care to explain? For me, it's like saying the kitchen table has the potential of having a city bus smash it to pieces. No matter how slight, the possibility is always there, but the table isn't (I don't know how to put it) saturated in this potential.

I don't now if it's intentional, but check this out:
physicsworld.com - Hydrogen result causes controversy...

In a way, what he claims is a bit like a layer, ain't it? He claims to have reached a lower ground state. This is why most credible science people think he's either crazy or selling snake oil.

I am fairly sure Randy Mills was wrong and is a crackpot, but wanted to show you.

Here's the wiki link for his "company". I have no idea if it's a legit or honest company:
en.wikipedia.org - BlackLight Power

Remember, this is the internet and wikipedia isn't the most trustworthy source. There's no evidence outside his company that confirms his claims. Repeated tests by others have failed to reproduce what he apparently claims to see in his experiments. His theories are handmade. So.... ya.

Randy kind of reminds me of Tesla, but in a bad way. Tesla had many theories that proved to be untrue. It seems either Randy is lying or he's got a lot of wrong ideas.

Originally posted by jonnywhite
Here's the wiki link for his "company". I have no idea if it's a legit or honest company:
en.wikipedia.org - BlackLight Power

I think this quote by Dr. Park in the wiki article sums it up:

"they have nothing to sell but bull #. The company is therefore dependent on investors with deep pockets and shallow brains." – Park

That's the second biggest "free energy" fraud in history. The first was the Keely motor company, if you adjust the invested amount for inflation.

reply to post by jiggerj


i can see that my phrasing is confusing there.

by "energy potential latent", i am referring to energy which is defined by relative relationships between objects or forms. this is usually referred to, in the case of a ball high up on a hill, as simply "POTENTIAL ENERGY". this is the same type of energy which is bound up in chemical bonds, and even deeper down in subatomic particles.

so, perhaps we can think of the universe as one of your images of density stratifications, but all shooken up all to hell.....and we are now in the process of all of those layers re-forming back into equilibrium. and in the case where we have a layer of lamp-oil beneath a layer of honey, there is an energy potential latent within their relationship.

i am not sure that its a great metaphor, but it is effective in its own way.