| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Cino" |
| Date: |
28 Aug 2005 04:28:28 PM |
| Object: |
"The Matter of "Dark Matter" |
"The Matter of "Dark Matter"
"Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions from
mediocre minds." - A. Einstein
There have been many postings about the mysterious "Dark
Matter" which is alleged to constitute 90 to 95% of the mass(energy) content
of
the Universe. The presence of this "Dark Matter" is indicated by the
observed
gravitational behavior of galaxies and clusters of galaxies. A large effort
is
apparently underway to detect this "Dark Matter" and to determine its
nature. In
all of the discussions there seems to be little attention to the 3 - 3.5
degree
K background radiation known for decades to be present. If one examined the
energy represented by this radiation, he finds that it is 10 to 20 times the
energy represented by the mass of conventional matter. Obviously, however,
there
is no need to pay attention to this radiation because, as everyone knows,
electromagnetic radiation does not possess inertial or gravitational mass.
Since everyone "knows" that electromagnetic radiation does not
possess inertial or gravitational mass, it behooves us to examine the
validity
of that belief. It has long been known that electromagnetic radiation
transports
momentum as witnessed by the pressure of Solar radiation which causes comets
to
have "tails". In addition, mainstream physicists have discussed the
feasibility
of using "light sails" for the propulsion of long distance space ships.
Mainstream physics tells us that the momentum transported by a photon is
identical to the momentum which would be transported by a material particle
of
the same total energy (rest mass plus kinetic energy). - I know that the
rest
mass of a material particle traveling at the velocity of light must be zero.
But
lets not quibble, divide that zero by the zero represented by the Lorentz
Transformation for mass and the inertial mass of the material particle can
have
any value between the limits of +/- zero. Since momentum is equal to the
product
of inertial mass and velocity, and the momentum of a photon is given by its
energy divided by the velocity of light, then dividing the equation which
provides the momentum of a photon by C shows that the photon behaves as if
its
inertial mass were equal to its energy divided by the square of the velocity
of
light. Maybe photons do not possess inertial mass in spite of observation,
but
as far as the writer is concerned, if it looks like a duck, walks like a
duck,
and quacks like a duck, he is willing to accept that it is a duck. The
inertial
mass of photons meet this test and if the current state of physical
knowledge
teaches otherwise it is time for physicists to rethink the subject.
Since photons act as if they possess inertial mass traveling
at the velocity of light, the background radiation of space must exert a
pressure which acting to cause the Universe to attempt to expand. Let us
examine
whether those same photons possess a gravitational mass. This is best done
by
considering an ideal thought experiment along the lines of those used by Dr.
Einstein. Consider a cold gravitational massive planet in intergalactic
space
(to eliminate spurious disturbances). Attached to opposite sides of this
planet
are columns each of which support an ideal retro reflector having 100%
efficiency. A beam of photons is sent from one of the retroreflectors, is
bent
by the planet's gravitational field as required by General Relativity, and
strikes the retroreflector on the other side of the planet. Because these
are
ideal retroreflectors, the photons are constrained to continuously travel
bask
and forth past the planets surface. It is a simple calculation (not
involving
relativity) to show that as a result of the gravitational "refraction" of
the
photon's path the process will cause a net force to be exerted on the
retroreflectors in a direction which is "down" at the point where the
photons
pass the surface. If we are to accept that the "Laws of Conservation of
Energy
and Momentum" are valid, then there must be an upward pull on the planet
equal
to the downward push on the retroreflectors. If these two forces are not
equal,
the entire system could be used as a "space tug" in violation of Newton's
Second
Law and/or a source of limitless energy in violation of the First Law of
Thermodynamics. The thought experiment is diagrammed in
http://einsteinhoax.com/cf83.gif. Its validity does not depend upon
relativistic
considerations. This thought experiment shows that, if light is observed to
be
"refracted" by a gravitational field, that "refraction" must result not from
the
'curvature" of space but from a gravitational force. The magnitude of that
force
must result from the photons having a "gravitational mass" equal to twice
their
inertial mass. For a more detained discussion see paragraphs 8.8 and 8.9 of
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm.
When one combines the effects of the gravitational and
inertial "masses" the photons which are observed to propagate through our
Universe one finds that the inertial mass tends to act as a gas to expand
the
Universe while the gravitational mass acts like any other gravitational mass
and
acts to contract the Universe. The size of the Universe at any one time is
determined primarily by the balance between these two effects. Once the "big
bang" state had been reached, the pressure of photons acted to produce the
observed expansion which will go on forever. All of these conclusions are
derived and discussed at http://einsteinhoax.com/index.htm .
The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax/hoax.htm ("The Einstein Hoax" {1997});
http://einsteinhoax/gravity.htm; ("Gravity" {1987}); and
http://einsteinhoax/relcor.htm ("Corrections to Special Relativity" {1997}).
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE
WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND
IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm .
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not
monitored on a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the
same
courtesy as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of
our
parts, please do not raise objections that are not related to material that
you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:-
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for
over 5 years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF
THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals
who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it.
If
anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered,
the
material at the Website will be withdrawn. Challenges to date have revealed
only
the responder's inadequacy with one exception for which a correction was
provided.
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Matter of "Dark Matter" |
28 Aug 2005 05:29:43 PM |
|
|
Cino wrote:
"The Matter of "Dark Matter"
"Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions from
mediocre minds." - A. Einstein
Oh the delicious irony of that quotation!
[snip ignorant crap]
http://www.freefarts.com/farts.html
Move cursor over blinkers to hear Retic's lecture.
Psychotic ineducable boring spammer retic (Ernest Wittke),
You see yourself this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png
http://www.edu-observatory.org/cranks.html
http://www.pagetutor.com/idiot/idiot.html
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
<http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf>
http://www.fuckinggoogleit.com/
http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
<http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html>
<http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html>
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999)
[snip]
Hey, stooopid spammer Ernest Wittke - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of
the 24 GPS satellites carries either four cesium atomic clocks or
three rubidum atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
corrections being applied. NAVSTAR Block II GPS satellites (currently
being launched as replacements) have two rubidium and two cesium
atomic clocks.
Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely
mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in
number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of
Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers
and with arithmetic.
<http://optoelectronics.perkinelmer.com/content/Datasheets/rfs2f.pdf>
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
<http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf>
<http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf>
<http://www.vallis.org/publications/tesidott.pdf>
Equivalence Principle testing
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0111236
Geometric structure of reality
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103044
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
Relativity in the GPS system
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
falling light
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
<http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf>
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/SRtwinParadox.html
<http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/twins.html>
Twin Paradox
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html>
<http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp>
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405160
Black hole evaporation
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409089
Spin-2 gravitons have problems
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.strings/msg/ba31a00f5f26277a>
(so does the proposal)
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 261101 (2004)
Nordtvedt Effect
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
Dark matter candidates
<http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll/frames.html>
Carroll on what it all means.
Special Relativity is physics on a topologically trivial Lorentzian
manifold with a metric whose curvature tensor is zero. This is a
perfectly diffeomorphism-invariant condition and does not require
any particular coordinate choice. It is invariant under
the full group of diffeomorphisms. The Poincare group is
the group of *isometries* of the metric in special relativity.
The Special Relativity metric is *non-dynamical* (unlike GR). It
defines the coupling *constants* of your theory. If you change the
metric in any nontrivial way you are changing your theory. An
operation can only be called a "symmetry" of a special-relativistic
(non-gravitational) theory if it preserves the metric, and therefore
the symmetry of special-relativistic theories is the Poincare group
only. General Relativity (gravitation) has a dynamic metric.
NIM A 355 537 (1995)
Physics Letters B 328 103 (1994)
Physical Review Letters 64 1697 (1990)
Physical Review Letters 39 1051 (1977)
Physical Review 135 B1071 (1964)
Physics Letters 12 260 (1964)
Europhysics Letters 56(2) 170-174 (2001)
General Relativity and Gravitation 34(9) 1371 (2002)
http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
<http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm>
<http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf>
Longitudinal and transverse mass
Physics Today 58(3) 34 (2005)
Time passage, equator vs. poles
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076
<http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP>
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
<http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Right, like your head has ever been withdrawn from your ***** - even
when you *****.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henry Haapalainen" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Matter of "Dark Matter" |
28 Aug 2005 05:50:35 PM |
|
|
Right, like your head has ever been withdrawn from your ***** - even
when you *****.
Uncle Al
Ungle Al, do you expect yourself being treated as a cultivated person?
Henry Haapalainen
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Matter of "Dark Matter" |
28 Aug 2005 04:33:13 PM |
|
|
Cino wrote:
"The Matter of "Dark Matter"
Thanks for registering "The Einstein Hoax" at crank dot net.
http://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+hoax+site%3Awww.crank.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "the softrat" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Matter of "Dark Matter" |
28 Aug 2005 09:46:47 PM |
|
|
Isn't "Dark Matter" all the lost odd socks of the generations?
the softrat
Sometimes I get so tired of the taste of my own toes.
mailto:softrat@pobox.com
--
Turn on, tune in, drop out. Do not attempt while in an aeroplane.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Matter of "Dark Matter" |
28 Aug 2005 04:35:56 PM |
|
|
i LOVE YOU, sAM. aRE YOU DATING ANYONE???????
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Matter of "Dark Matter" |
28 Aug 2005 04:31:23 PM |
|
|
Dark Matter is matter which is not illuminated. QED.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
