PD wrote:

TomGee wrote:

PD wrote:

TomGee wrote:

PD wrote:

TomGee wrote:

My model of the universe accepts the existence of Dark Matter as the
long-sought ether which Gamow asserted is a sea of particles having
negative mass and energy.

1. Dark Matter's proposed properties are inconsistent with the
properties of the "long-sought" electromagnetic ether.

Of course they are. If you had a clue about Gamow's ether you would
know it is not an em ether. It seems you have been seeking an em ether
while everyone else is not.

Reference, please, to what Gamov's ether is, according to you.

Not Gamov - GAMOW! George, great American physicist! Goggle him.

My apologies. I'm used to a poor spelling of his name. I'll work to
correct.

2. The negative-energy "sea" that you are reading from a very old Gamov
description (in Scientific American, I believe),

You have a good memory like a good elephant. Either that or you're
keeping score in our pissing match.

From the 1950's, I recall, almost 60 years old.

I got a BA in the mid-70s, 35 yrs ago. It was all new to me then.

is a layperson's

description that has since been replaced with the Feynman description
(which actually emerged just a couple years after the Gamov article,
but still a very long time ago.)

You really believe that Feynman can shine Gamow's shoes? What a
maroon! Oh, and you again left out support for your silly opinion....

I don't view it as a pissing match.

It's all a pissing match, PD! Get used to it.

I think this is part of what makes you approach things so
unscientifically. You *do* think it's a pissing match. At some point,
you must have thought, "I wonder if I can outpiss a racehorse."

No, you don't undertand. Life is a pissing match. So long as you wish
it to be otherwise, you're living in denial (And I don't mean the river
in Egypt).

I've just stated the historical
fact. As for whether Gamov had a better idea of what was going on than
Feynman, would you care to offer support for your unsupported opinion?

I did, in the S. A. reference you so pointedly remember.

Recall that Gamow's article that you're citing came out *before*
Feynman's ideas hit the popular press, so it would be awfully hard, on
the basis of this article, to support your conclusion that Gamow
understood better what was going on than Feynman did.

Why? Gamow understood that better than Feynman even with Feynman's
advantage of hindsight, is what I meant.

3. The properties of Dark Matter as currently proposed are not
compatible with negative mass or negative energy. For example, a
negative mass's role in gravitational interaction would be exactly
opposite that required by the observations that suggest Dark Matter's
existence.

(Sighhh....) I started to award you one smiley face for your example
which you offer to support your claim, but then I realized your example
has no support for it either (which makes both statements unsupported
opinions).

Anyway, DM properties appear to be precisely the opposite of real
matter (RM)properties at least in that they seem to repel RM to certain
extents.

No, it doesn't. You are perhaps referring to the "dark energy" which
has been proposed to possibly account for the acceleration of the
expansion of the universe. (See the January 1999 and October 2001
issues of Scientific American.)

No, I'm not referring to that. Haven't read it, and I don't subscribe.
but lead me to it on the 'net and I will.

www.sciam.com. You may need to spend some money.

I've bought some issues, but my budget is so tight I have make choices.
I opted out of a rag that won't take submissions.

As I undertand it, Dark
Energy (DE) is presumed to have effects just like our positive energy
has within all of the known fundamental forces.

That is incorrect.

Well, that's what you said in your opinion that DM acts opposite to the
way you would expect neg mass to act, and that it is opined to be the
cause of the expansion process's acceleration.

That is an
unreasonable assumption of what Gamow called negative energy. I
believe Gamow was right, why should DE be positive if DM is negative?

Because they are not related. For example, they do not share the E=mc2
relationship that positive mass and positive energy do.

That's your opinion and I support to the death your right to have it,
but I disagree.

Intuitively, positive mass/energy are side of the mass/energy coin, and
negative mass/energy is the other side (Damn - another duality atop the
mass/energy duality! Hell, mebbe it is turtles all the way down!).

How could negative DE cause the expansion process to accelerate?

DE is not presumed to be negative energy. *You* said it is negative
energy that's responsible. It's your model. You explain it.

I have explained it already. Negative energy is the energy inherent in
(or comprising) neg. mass. You et al are saying that the noted effects
are being caused by positive energy and I disagree for the reasons I
gave above. The effects observed are consistent with what we would
expect from my description of neg. mass/energy and opposite what we
should observe if your predictions were correct.

You
read it, synopsize it for us, PD, let's see if you got it right. If
anything, since +energy can accelerate things (although you deny it as
a force, you use it when you need it for your convenience to suit you
as a force), -energy should not have that same effect. Gamow's ether
has invisible negative mass and its attendant negative energy. You
talk as if DE exists without DM, but that would be inconsistent with
the meaning given to the terms in use.

And you are the one presuming that if energy and mass have a certain
relationship, then putting "dark" in front of both of them should
preserve that relationship. That's not what physicists say about dark
matter and dark energy, Tom.

Who physicists? I'm saying that, and whomsoever disagrees may enter
this pissing match at will. I.e., if they're not too afraid to say
what they think in public and for posterity. Or you can enter them by
simply quoting what they have said about this instead of just your own
opinions.

It is given this name partly to
distinguish it from "dark matter" which is NOT assumed to repel
ordinary matter.

So Feynman says this, or is it just your opinion?

It is the opinion of physicists, Tom. Since dark matter is a concept
that grew up later than the 1950's, you may have to do more recent
reading than that.

I disagree with your opinion that it is the opinion of physicists. You
are not in any position to assert that since all your read is the
current editings in WikiPiki.

It is incongruent
with our descriptions of mass and energy, which are interdependent
according to E=mc^2. If DE repels RM, you cannot exclude DM from those
interactions.

See the above references for a deeper explanation of
this distinction.

If it is so that DM is what holds galaxies together, it may
be that DM does that in effect by gravitationally repulsing RM with an
anti-gravitational property of DM.

Note "holds together" implies an attractive force, not a repulsive
force. Unless you care to explain how a repulsive force would cause
matter to coalesce.

Infer from that what you will, I won't stop you. A bowl holds its
contents by neither attraction nor repulsion, so your little strawman
is afire.

It's pertinent to note that galaxies do not have a bowl to hold them
together. Therefore they must rely on the mutual attraction of the
stuff that comprises them.

But scientists claim that is not enough to explain their staying
together as galaxies. Did you forget what we were talking about,
elephant brain?

All the known fundamental forces
use energy as their functional power and it is all positive energy.
Perhaps the negative energy of DM causes a repulsive force rather than
an attractive force upon RM. Thus, the role of neg. mass and energy,
as opposed to your unsupported opinion that it is exactly opposite to
that required, is instead precisely suggested by the effects observed.

The random (and sometimes forced) appearance of particles from the
so-called "fields" said to exist in the "quantum vacuum" can be better
explained by interactions of DM with RM. My model proposes that matter
is created by such interactions. During the BB, the temperature of the
contents of the BB were too hot for matter to exist in other than
perhaps tiny amounts. In such a case, the Inflationary Period is not
needed to explain the homogeneity of elements in the universe because
the contents of the BB could move at c, and light moves external to the
time dimension of the universe. Thus the contents could move at c for
however long it took to become homogenously distributed throughout the
universe. Only when the tempertures lowered to allow the formation of
matter particles would time accrue as a property of matter but by then
the elements would have been well distributed as we see them today.

You seem to try to be hinting at an explanation of why mass is
*uniform*, but not at all how mass comes to be nonzero. It is this
question that the Higgs mechanism answers, and your paragraph above is
irrelevant to that.

Good point, but I have addressed that in the past. The visible photon
is a potential photon particle in the sea of invisible latent particles
until and unless a light wave happens by and transforms it into a
visible photon.

Once again, you fire off something completely irrelevant. How is this
relevant to how an electron acquires a nonzero mass, and how a pion has
a *different* non-zero mass?

My model refers to all latent particles which can be transformed by
positive energy into RM. As DM particles, they exist in Dirac's
extraordinary states wherein they have a mass which is less than zero,
hence the term, "negative mass", and as such they are invisible to our
eyes.

As an energy wave passes through a DM particle, it imbues it with some
of its energy which is +energy and with a certain amount of such energy
accrued by the particle, it changes from a negative mass state into a
positive mass state where it now has a nonzero mass which is visible to
us. The change is temporary of course, lasting only for the length of
the energy wave, but there is another one just behind that one which
will transform that same particle once again into a +mass/energy
visible particle.

Even more interesting than that, we may now be able to conjecture about
what occurred before the BB to create the so-called "singularity". If
DM affects RM in an anti-gravitational way, it may be that DM will
eventually cause the universe to "fold back" onto itself and become the
singularity from which a new universe will spring. The point is, we
cannot ignore the far-reaching possible consequences of the extent to
which the overwhelming amount of DM plays in the universe.

You are not unique in this conjecture and this of course has been one
of possibilities entertained ever since the BB theory was proposed.

No, Gamow's BBT did not include Dark Matter or Dark Energy as a
constituent and I have never heard it said or written before I came up
with the idea of putting the two together.

Well, some stuff has happened in physics since the 1950's...

So you have not really heard my idea before, you just made that up, eh?

The
recent experimental discovery that the expansion of the universe is
*accelerating* has rendered that question moot, as it is seen that the
expansion is not slowing down and that it will not fold back onto
itself eventually. Apparently, you haven't caught up with those
developments. By the way, the two articles in Scientific American that
I mentioned also discuss this in more detail.

As I said, I don't subscribe. However, you are completely wrong if you
see that theory as reality before all the facts are in.

By the time it gets into Scientific American, it's usually pretty well
established as experimental fact.

Ah ha ha ha aha ahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaashaasha!!!!!
Haaaaahaaaaaahaaa! GASP...GASP....Quick My Nitroglycerine!!!! It's
coming!! It's the biiig one!!!!!!

Current physics asserts the existence of fields in empty space from
whence come randomly appearing particles of matter. Peter Higgs
proposed that a field exists in empty space through which particles
move and from which they attain their mass as if they were moving
through a thick liquid.

The concept of fields has long survived its critics because it does not
claim to be reality, but simply a way to describe what appears to be
happening in space. In the Higgs field, a particle moves through it
and locally distorts the field and the distorted elements become part
of the particle's mass, and that's how particles acquire their mass.
This means that particles have no mass unless and until they move
through the Higgs field. The Higgs field is the whole of the vacuum of
space, formed similar to the latticeworks of solids containing charged
crystal atoms. The distorted field is the Higgs particle, or there may
be only a Higgs process and field without a Higgs particle.

The distorted elements can be thought of as a clustering of waves
called phonons. They can behave as if they are particles and they too
are bosons.

Scientists are looking for the Higgs particle, a boson, to show that
such a field exists. My model proposes that the "Higgs field" is
actually Gamow's ether but which is composed of Dark Matter. The
random appearances of particles is caused by DM particle interactions
with positive energies that result in making the particles visible to
us.

OK, then i suppose you'll also explain DM's role in causing fermions to
have mass, as well as DM's role in breaking the symmetry in electroweak
interactions to weak and electromagnetic interactions at low energy.

I think Higg's ideas about the creation of mass are tenable, but his em
fields are fields of DM, or neg. mass/energies from which RM is created
as the result of the interactions of DM and the energies from the BB.

You missed the point completely. You need to understand what
spontaneous symmetry breaking of the *electroweak* interaction means.

No, I don't. You need to explain why you think that has a
corresponding relatonship to our topic.

Because that's what the Higgs mechanism does, as well as impart mass.
In other words, if you say the Higgs mechanism is not necessary because
your model provides a better explanation of what it does, then you have
to account for *everything* that it does.

No, I don't. It's already wrong; it needs to explain how it does that,
not me.

I think we will find nothing inconsistent with what I claim in my model.

You haven't explained anything. You've spent four times as many lines
explaining what you think is currently thought, than what your theory
would say.

If I put my entire theory here in one piece, PD, your mind would
explode and splatter against your mom's walls and she would be pissed!

Ah, I see. So you are hiding the details to protect the world. Good
strategy. It would be bad if a new theory caused much head-exploding
and widespread panic.

I'm not hiding anything from you, PD. You seem to have a very
selective memory when it comes to remembering what I've said in the
past except when I have explained my model to you.

In general, Tom, you've explained very little of your model to me. If
you've explained your whole model to me, then you don't have much to
your model. Perhaps you could email me your whole model, so we could
look at it together in detail...

Sure. Email me with your email address and I will mail what I have,
but what I have is not the revised edition which I am working on now.
What you get now is my response to issues in physics and the basis of
most of my model. It is plenty for you to read but it does not yet
contain the DM ideas to the extent which I have researched them here.
It's free for you only if you agree to let me know what you think about
my idea, and you have already done that aplenty, so email me at
lvlus@hotmail.com.