Re: Nature of dark matter and dark energy
- From: "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Dec 2005 11:17:08 -0800
franklinhu@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> PD wrote:
> [snip]
> > I've explained my objections to your ToE before. Insisting that protons
> > and electrons *somehow* make up the aether that *somehow* conveys light
> > *somehow* without attenuation doesn't cut it. You'd have to show how
> > such a structure *could* convey light without attenuation, especially
> > in view of the fact that other constructions of protons and electrons
> > do seriously affect the passage of light.
> >
> I don't think it is that mysterious how it could transmit waves. We
> know how sound waves travel through solids.
And sound transmission through solids exhibits frequency-dependent
dispersion and all sorts of effects that are related to the medium that
are NOT seen with light transmission through the vacuum.
> This is exactly how light
> travels through the aether. Since the aether particles are the smallest
> units of matter with nothing else to interfere, I would not expect
> there to be any frictional losses.
I beg pardon? You've supposed that aether particles are bound states of
protons and electrons. Bound states of protons and electrons most
certainly do exhibit frictional losses. (Consider any state -- solid,
liquid, gas -- of hydrogen. Consider a neutron star interior, if you'd
like.) So you'd have to explain why in *this* particular bound state,
your aether, the frictional losses suddenly drop to *zero*.
> The aether particles appear in a
> true vacuum and we know a vacuum presents no frictional loses.
We know *experimentally* a vacuum presents no frictional losses. You
have to demonstrate theoretically how a lattice of bound states of
protons and electrons *could* present no frictional losses.
> Therefore no attenuation would be expected in the medium except in
> places where there is something to interfere with the normal crystal
> lattice which explains why the presense of free protons and electrons
> do seriously effect the passage of light. There's nothing unusual or
> difficult to believe about it. I think I have explained all of your
> "somehow's" with simple logic and example.
>
> [snip]
> > Actually, this explanation (for boyancy) has been around since the days of
> > Archimedes, and works very well for boats, submarines, dirigibles,
> > high-precision scales, skindiver weight belts, and so on and on. You
> > should read up on it. :>)
> > The buoyancy force happens to be equal to the weight of the fluid
> > displaced. (You can use this fact to *derive* how the pressure in a
> > fluid increases with depth.) In the case of a helium balloon, the
> > weight of the balloon and the helium is less than the weight of the
> > displaced air, and so the balloon rises.
>
> I think you would have to admit that this isn't an explanation but
> rather a description of how boyancy works. It explains "how" but not
> "why" it works.
Nonsense. I'd be happy to explain in more detail "why" buoyancy works
that way. Would you like me to take you step by step through that
thinking?
> I was just trying to show that an explanation of
> dielectrophoresis does at least explain exactly "why" the boyancy
> effect occurs as a reverse process of downward gravity which can be
> mathematically proven.
What you haven't shown is how the same interaction can pull in both
directions. You'll note that dielectrophoresis does not say that there
is a force pulling both in the direction of increaseing field AND in
the direction of decreasing field.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > No, that's not true. Why do you think the force would be stronger in
> > > and near galaxies? As galaxies gather together, they form pockets of
> > > same space density and therefore have no incentive to spread out.
> > > However, if there are any empty areas, the galaxies will all run away
> > > from these areas because they are of a higher density and the weak
> > > gravity from the galaxies at the other side will push the galaxies at
> > > the other end further apart.
> >
> > No. It might take a little model to convince you of this fact, but a
> > repulsive force *always* ends up in uniform distribution (not clumping)
> > and an attractive force with any random fluctuation in density *always*
> > ends up in clumping.
> >
>
> I would agree with your statements. Gravity acts as both an attractive
> and repulsive force in my model (which is a very neat unification). At
> close range, the attractive gravitational force is dominant and causes
> matter to clump. At far range where matter is separated by a void, the
> dominant force is repulsion.
OK, you'll have to explain in more detail (mathematically would be
good) how the sign of the interaction changes with range. I'm not
saying it can't, but you need to be able to explicitly account for it.
> So the void effectively tries to form a
> clump or a bubble and everything else gets pushed out as far as it can.
> This would be analogous to blowing bubbles inside of a closed box where
> the inside of the bubbles are the voids which are trying to reduce
> their surface area, and the galaxies are the bubble walls. This is
> exactly the pattern that is observed.
You'll note in the soap bubble analogy there are two *different*
substances at play that have *different* operating interactions
governing their behavior. (There is no surface tension in the gas in
the bubble volume; there is no molecular dispersion in the fluid of the
bubble wall.)
>
> Also, you did say that dark matter was evenly distributed. If you read
> the references from Sam Wormley, the significance is that when they
> mapped dark matter, it was found to clump around galaxies. It is not
> evenly distributed which indicates that dark matter is gravitationally
> attracted and should be found assocated with real matter. This is a
> reason why I suggested we test for the presence of dark matter around
> the Earth by carefully checking the orbital parameters of satellites at
> different heights.
And you'll note that a gravitationally *attracting* dark matter that
interacts with conventional matter holds together consistently as a
model. A *repulsive* dark matter has some of the difficulties I was
alluding to. Also, be careful to distinguish dark matter from dark
energy. The two are *completely* different beasts.
>
>
> > > > >
> > > > > These theories are part of my theory of everything which can be found
> > > > > at:
> > > > > http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html
> > > > >
> > > > > fhudark
.
- References:
- Nature of dark matter and dark energy
- From: franklinhu
- Re: Nature of dark matter and dark energy
- From: PD
- Re: Nature of dark matter and dark energy
- From: franklinhu
- Re: Nature of dark matter and dark energy
- From: PD
- Re: Nature of dark matter and dark energy
- From: franklinhu
- Nature of dark matter and dark energy
- Prev by Date: Re-Simplified: Mixed up between Hydraulic & Atmospheric Pressure on Fluids?
- Next by Date: Re: How does light travel through a vacuum?
- Previous by thread: Re: Nature of dark matter and dark energy
- Next by thread: Re: Nature of dark matter and dark energy
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
