Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!

From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) (net_at_nospam.com)
Date: 12/27/04 

Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 19:28:38 -0700

Dear David Thomson:

"David Thomson" <news5@volantis.org> wrote in message
news:TKJzd.30$rx4.4200@news.uswest.net...
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
> message news:OHFzd.8231$8e5.5697@fed1read07...
>>> You won't find gravity bending light ANYWHERE in the Universe.
>>
>> It is found in our solar system, in signalling to/from Venus. It is
>> found in sightings of stars during a solar eclipse.
>
> The light is bending, but it is not due to gravity. It is due to the
> density of the body. As subatomic particles bind, they fold the Aether
> (and capture dark matter.) As the Aether folds, it pulls in surround
> quantum Aether units, just like a bowling ball on a flat rubber ***,
> except that it is 3D.

There is no "density" in the vicinity that light is passing through.

>>> and since photons have zero mass, the gravitational force is zero.
>>
>> Gravitational force is zero in GR anyway.
>
> Then why are you saying that gravity bends light? The gravitational
> force IS gravity. If the gravitational force is zero, then gravity does
> not bend light.

Why does the press insist on E=mc^2? Same as with "gravity bends light".
And I have not said it... you have. Once they get something not quite
wrong, they assume this is close enough to right.

>>> Now if you really wanted to know how light bends around massive
>>> objects, you might ask me for the answer, because I have it.
>>
>> No wonder people accuse science of being religion. David Thomson, the
>> mystic.
>
> I'm actually the one presenting the science here. I have fully
> quantified the Aether, quantified how Aether folds to capture dark matter
> as neutrinos, and provided a mathematically correct Unified Force Theory
> that properly shows the relationship between the strong force and the
> gravitational force. What do you call a science that does not have a
> Unified Force Theory, cannot quantify the neutrino, ignores the existence
> of Aether, and says gravity can bend light with a zero force?

Your "science" is mysticism. GR has spacetime as the product of
mass/energy... the playground produced by the toys. No force is required.

>>> As for dark matter, it exists mainly near massive objects.
>>
>> Most of it is in the intergalactic void. The balance is inside the
>> visible rim of spiral galaxies.
>
> No, actually, most of dark matter exists in the center of galaxies and
> near massive objects. What looks like a void from our tiny human
> perception is actually a densely packed group of stars.

You really need to check your "facts" more carefully. Dark Matter has been
carefully mapped. It is NOT where your imagination places it. It is NOT
"at the center of galaxies", but at (and beyond) the rims of spiral
galaxies. This is known, since spiral galaxies seem to have been intact
with their "amazing" velocity profile. If the DM were located at the
center, then this profile would be much different than what is seen.

>>> There is more dark matter near Earth than there is in the emptiness of
>>> space.
>>
>> Citation?
>
> Neutrinos are dark matter. Neutrinos are released from beta decay.
> Neutrinos get absorbed within the Earth and Sun, but not in the space in
> between. I could provide citations for these observations, but I don't
> have the time.

You don't have a clue.

Goodbye.

<plonk>

David A. Smith

Loading