Gravity of the Situation

[Doer]

What does Earth really look like to the Universe? Odd. No wonder orbits can be so tricky. This is the Gravity Density Earth.

http://www.blogs.discovermagazine.com

On that subject, now that we know about gravity lensing, how far out there is "stuff" anyway? If we go by light speed only, and we do, we calculate the straight line distance, only.

Now we know there is no straight line distance, what so ever, for light on the scale of the Universe. All light is bent significantly many times and in many directions before it finally gets here.

It reminds me of that fact about Solar Photons. They are born deep inside the sun but the route to get out is so tortured with the density interactions, that what should have taken only a few seconds, takes 10 million years. The point is, if we only had the light path to measure the Sun, it would seem to be 20 million light years across. See what I mean? The Sun is only about 864,938 miles across. The Solar Photons are slowed by more than 95%.

So, it could turn out that the oldest light has been traveling for 17 billion years, across a 17 billion light year path, and is around 17 billion years old as measured by the non-gravity affected Big Bang microwaves. But we have no idea how tortured these paths were. So we have no idea how far it is, straight line, to the far galaxy edge. It could easily be only 1/10 as far, like 1.7 billion light years.

Here are some tortured light paths discovered in Dark Matter. Dark Matter is 27% and Dark Energy is 68% of the Energy of the Universe.

OK? Now Dark Energy. That has been discovered to be pushing matter apart, all over. If light had to travel gravity tortured paths to get here, and it seems to have, then those twisty, tortured paths has changed very significantly in the last 17 billion years. Dark Energy has been at work, the entire time, making the light journey longer and longer. The also means the universe is likely much less old and less wide than we ever thought before, I think.

But, I am not carefully defending the career choice and the buy in of Cosmological Physics. I am free to think for myself.

 

[Wilksey]

There's no such thing as dark matter or dark energy.

 

[Doer]

There's no such thing as dark matter or dark energy.

Says who? Say that why? We observe them both.

 

[Wilksey]

Says who? Say that why? We observe them both.

So you say. A lot of people believe Jesus was real.

No evidence of that either.

And I know we are all wired for superstition.

 

[Doer]

So you say. A lot of people believe Jesus was real.

No evidence of that either.

And I know we are all wired for superstition.

Why are you saying this hard science is superstition? Why do galaxies behave in such a weird way? What is your explanation? Aliens?

This is not belief, honcho. This is the Current Understanding of Cosmology. It is totally based in ruthless experiments designed to flush out the crack pot ideas, like Cold Fusion. Only the MOST REAL TO DATE gets the nod of Current Understanding.

Science rids the thoughts of superstition at the same time the superstitious, Alien visitor types, such as yourself, try to say Science is Superstition.

Cool trick for the nut jobs.

Say Wilksey, do you believe you can tie your shoe or can you actually find a shoe and string in Reality and tie it?

There is Dark Matter and Dark Energy. But, those are just labels...such as Troll.

But, they are measurable phenomenon, that have been observed by enough research to be shown to be very real from our perspective, is all.

Oh but, Alien Civilizations visiting Earth is not superstition? Wrong. There is NO measurable phenomenon, that have been observed by enough research to be shown to be very real from our perspective. It amazes me when you don't get the difference.

 

[heckler73]

Until I see someone who is a proponent of "dark" anything test the influence of Maxwell's Equations in their cosmology paradigm, I won't even listen...
Half of the physicists I discuss this with are "suspicious" of the subject, albeit, not for the same reasons as I. Classical Field Theory still has many doors left to open in our Universe of wonders.

 

[Doer]

Well how do you explain the observations?

Galaxies rotate like solid plates and not as the visible light from all sources, predicts?

Gravity Lens techniques that Map the size, shape and location of the "dark matter?"

 

[Wilksey]

Says who? Say that why? We observe them both.

No.

There is not a single creditable picture.

I am talking about an incident where there are independent, photos and footage, and a real something to touch.

I'm not new to this rodeo.

If [dark matter fell from the heavens] for all to see, that would be proof. There is no proof.


As you can see from what I said, I can deny nothing but Occum's Razor.

 

[Doer]

No.

There is not a single creditable picture.

I am talking about an incident where there are independent, photos and footage, and a real something to touch.

I'm not new to this rodeo.

If [dark matter fell from the heavens] for all to see, that would be proof. There is no proof.


As you can see from what I said, I can deny nothing but Occum's Razor.

But, there is proof. DM acts as a gravity lens. All observers can see it from Earth, though in-directly, like gamma ray detection. Something big encases the all the galaxies. It is how we discovered it. Galaxies rotate as if they were a solid object and not a fluid of stars swirling in their own gravity. Their edges are velocity locked to the center. Impossible? NO. Observable

Just like we know x-rays are not visible but they are there., We can use X-rays. These gravity clouds (Dark Matter) are "there." We can "see" them in the same way we "see" x-rays. These gravity clouds bend light. And photos can be taken of the magnified light. Those can be mapped back to the shape of the gravity cloud.

But, is it matter, or just thin areas in the fabric of the quantum dimensions? Gravity is so weak, a billion times weaker than EM. If you have regions of stronger gravity, it could help the idea in Quantum World Theory, that most of our gravity, quite luckily is elsewhere, and not here, to crush us into a Big Bang again.

The displaced gravity could be along one the 8 other quantum dimensions. But, around a lot other Matter, say, a galaxy of it, more gravity leaks into our 4D space, quite significantly.

 

[Wilksey]

But, there is proof. ...

People say a lot of shit. That is the very meaning of Occum's Razor.

I assume all see something. I assume the human mind is vast. I assume the desire to believe and add layer of pattern making ie stition, superimposed on Reality is a universal trait.

What you have here is the usual leap of faith, i,e. bald conjecture.































Sounds silly, doesn't it?

 

[Doer]

So, you think we are not observing anything?

 

[Doer]

Some people believe in goats. I don't believe in goats.

Still, your idea that we are all just making this shit up, sits well with me. I've often wondered if the galaxies were just fine until we looked at them....if they were there at all.

 

[heckler73]

Well how do you explain the observations?

Galaxies rotate like solid plates and not as the visible light from all sources, predicts?

Gravity Lens techniques that Map the size, shape and location of the "dark matter?"

You answer the question in a later post. EM goes a long way (pun intended) at explaining galactic rotation.
As for lensing, why don't we see Einstein rings more?
If gravitational lensing is real, why doesn't it happen when we expect it to? While I have seen evidence for the lensing effect, I have not seen evidence suggesting gravity is the reason. Quite to the contrary as detailed below:

http://www.extinctionshift.com/

 

[Doer]

It is interesting but I am not talking about all the challenges of the Current Understanding. That is simply the reason for the current understanding. It allows guys like this to challenge it.

The dragging of the space frame around the orbit and slow the clocks is well known. But, the explanation for it, the propagation of EM on the gravity gradient, in-directly, is meaningless.

The light or the EM is lensed, but he is saying it is not gravity lensing? It is from the Solar wind? No it is the same gravity gradient. A lot of guys make $$ on the lecture circuit merely by re-casting and re-explaining the Current Understanding.

I tell you, I listened to the this gobble. It is just plain Right. But he is just saying he is right and the GR crowd is wrong.

But, just like Scientology, it is just a retelling, to falsely say he is right vs they are wrong. Grav Gradient is all there is and all that is needed to bend light. Grav potential is the Red Herring in this silly lecture.

No wonder he is published but ignored. Baffling Bullshit, only.

 

[Doer]

You answer the question in a later post. EM goes a long way (pun intended) at explaining galactic rotation.
As for lensing, why don't we see Einstein rings more?
If gravitational lensing is real, why doesn't it happen when we expect it to? While I have seen evidence for the lensing effect, I have not seen evidence suggesting gravity is the reason. Quite to the contrary as detailed below:

http://www.extinctionshift.com/

Lensing is real, it is only in the places that are predicted.

And Maxwell's formulas do no explain galactic "plate form" rotation. Nor does it explain the tiny errata in the orbits of the stars on the rim of a galaxy. If you map those you can find an irregular anomaly. of giant size and shape around the galaxy. Then someone said, OK, that must be lensing if it is gravity, and sure enough they do lens.

So,. really I have no knowledge of your ideas about Einstein's Ring or lensing not as predicted.

Please show peer review in Astrophysics or another noted Journal of Science. Or this report from NASA passes muster, for me....for the time being.

Erica Hupp
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1237

Steve Roy
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.
256-544-6535

Megan Watzke
Chandra X-ray Center, Cambridge, Mass.
617-496-7998
Aug. 21, 2006

RELEASE : 06-297


NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter


http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html

Dark matter and normal matter have been wrenched apart by the tremendous collision of two large clusters of galaxies. The discovery, using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and other telescopes, gives direct evidence for the existence of dark matter.

"This is the most energetic cosmic event, besides the Big Bang, which we know about," said team member Maxim Markevitch of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass.

These observations provide the strongest evidence yet that most of the matter in the universe is dark. Despite considerable evidence for dark matter, some scientists have proposed alternative theories for gravity where it is stronger on intergalactic scales than predicted by Newton and Einstein, removing the need for dark matter. However, such theories cannot explain the observed effects of this collision.

"A universe that's dominated by dark stuff seems preposterous, so we wanted to test whether there were any basic flaws in our thinking," said Doug Clowe of the University of Arizona at Tucson, and leader of the study. "These results are direct proof that dark matter exists."

 

[heckler73]

Lensing is real, it is only in the places that are predicted.

And Maxwell's formulas do no explain galactic "plate form" rotation. Nor does it explain the tiny errata in the orbits of the stars on the rim of a galaxy. If you map those you can find an irregular anomaly. of giant size and shape around the galaxy. Then someone said, OK, that must be lensing if it is gravity, and sure enough they do lens.

Eh? If there are galactic currents (i.e. Birkeland currents) then Maxwell's equations should be involved.
As far as can be told from recent data at the heliosphere's edge, there seems to be some larger electrical field that envelops our galaxy. But I suppose until I sit down and do some calcs using MEs I won't be able to lay out much of a convincing argument. I'll try to get around to it during the break.

So,. really I have no knowledge of your ideas about Einstein's Ring or lensing not as predicted.

Watch Dowdye's presentation (or go look at his page). Gravitational lensing should be observed at multiples of R, not just around the plasma sheath.

Please show peer review in Astrophysics or another noted Journal of Science. Or this report from NASA passes muster, for me....for the time being.

Your link is 8 years old. Here's another one from a few months ago.
http://www.nasa.gov/chandra/news/mysterious-xray-signal.html
They refer to your link as "proof" yet I hear no one else stating as such. They then explain the caveats in sec.6 of the paper.

I don't know, brother, but if they are not seeing MORE activity in other parts of the Universe, then how can they confidently state such things as "85% dark matter" ?
The evidence is not there, and they even suggest as much in the caveat section, where they'll need another tool (yet to be launched) in order to get better data.

The CCD on Chandra has a resolution of ~100eV, but they are trying to distinguish a signal with a width of 1eV.
Do you not see a problem there along with the large amount of fit parameters?

 

[Doer]

Well, it is a phenomeon, but I don't think anyone has proved it is a form of matter. Just how dense does space have to become to be called matter. It may not be an either or, proposition. Matter is in various density, and so may space be also. Matter could be very dense space, for all we know.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/09/exploring-the-monstrous-creatures-at-the-edges-of-the-dark-matter-map/
Dark matter, however, is still a placeholder term. Over the decades since astronomers determined that most of the mass in the cosmos is invisible, researchers have done a much better job of figuring out what dark matter isn’t than what it actually is. We know it must be electrically neutral, and it can’t be made up of ordinary matter (electrons, atomic nuclei, etc.). And while “dark matter” itself is a general term, physicists have a sort of cartography of hints: areas on the map in which various dark matter candidates reside.

The most popular of these realms contains the WIMPs: weakly interacting massive particles. Like the term “dark matter," WIMP is generic: the name describes the energy scale at which these hypothetical particles interact with ordinary matter, which in turn reveals something about their mass.

WIMPs have an advantage from a theoretical standpoint in that particle physicists have some idea of how they could have been created in the first moments after the Big Bang. Beyond that, though, multiple theories can produce particles that look like WIMPs, including versions of supersymmetry (SUSY). For that reason, the majority of dark matter experiments are looking for WIMPs, and in most discussions when we say “dark matter,” we really mean “WIMP.”
--------------------blah blah or other un-known particles.

For the energy budget, that is based on observation and heavy math.
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/CosmologyEssays/Why_Dark_Matter.html

Plenty of good stuff there from the Berkeley Cosmology Group

 

[Doer]

Of course, the reason the energy budget calculation have changed so in the last 10 years, is A1 class supernova as Standard Candle for measuring distance was discovered. They took a suprising measurement.

Damn@!! The universe is flying apart faster and faster. That takes a lot of energy.

 

[heckler73]

Of course, the reason the energy budget calculation have changed so in the last 10 years, is A1 class supernova as Standard Candle for measuring distance was discovered. They took a suprising measurement.

Damn@!! The universe is flying apart faster and faster. That takes a lot of energy.

And that's where the entropy arguments come in. If the natural tendency of "stuff" is to increase entropy, the Universe has to expand to accommodate it.
Although, I can't say squat as to how that fits into "dark" physics

 

[Doer]

Dark is just fancy Press talk. They all will say, we don't know shit about any of it.

That is an interesting idea about entropy itself is the driver of accelerated expansion.