Re: Could Dark Matter be here on earth?

On May 23, 4:04 pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Could it be possible that dark matter is nearer to life than we think?
Could it be amongst us?
If so it would be detectable surely - it has mass. Would we know the
difference between it and ordinary matter though?

H.

Dear Hardy Spicer: Discussions of "Dark Matter" relate
(unfortunately) to Einstein's nonsense explanation for the... Big
Bang: “That time and space didn't exist at... ‘creation‘, so all of
the matter in the Universe must have been (Ha!) compressed to the size
of a subatomic particle (sic).” The red shift that’s observed to be
greater for the more far away galaxies has "implied" that the Universe
is not only expanding, but is doing so at a rate which is increasing
(sic).
The implication of the latter expansion is that the Universe will
eventually get very diluted, cold, and eventually die... unless...
Unless there is an unobservable 90% of the Universe's mass which isn't
yet detectable. Zillions of dollars (figuratively, of course) are
being wasted on experiments of one kind or another hoping to discover
missing massive particles, or even black holes floating around, to
somehow "save" the Universe from a cold, lonely fate, and to inject
the necessary gravity "needed" to stop the run-away expansion.
Well, there’s no need to waste any more time and money looking!
The Universe isn't expanding; there was never "a" Big Bang; and there
is NO missing mass! Here's why: Estimates of the mass of the
Universe were erroneously based on Newton's Law of 'Universal'
Gravitation (Ha!). Newton used the calculated masses of the Earth/
moon system to confirm his 'logical' equation. He (and others using
his equation) took the Earth/moon system and extrapolated that same
mode of analysis to figure the masses of the planets. And knowing the
masses and orbits of the planets, used his equation to figure the
'mass' of the Sun that would be necessary to hold all of the planets
in their observed orbits.
Unfortunately, Newton didn't realize that his equation would only
work for masses that aren't very hot. In actuality, the sun, stars,
and galaxies have gravities far in excess of the their masses.
Scientists (Ha!) figure there must be super-massive black holes
holding most galaxies together, because the observed galaxy spin
speeds (detected from Doppler shift) is much to high for the "implied"
masses of those galaxies to hold them together. No one before yours
truly has realized that Newton simply over-extrapolated his... LUG!
*** Once the radiant output of a star or galaxy is pumped into
Newton’s "law"—as a correction factor—the COLD mass needed to slow an
expansion (which isn't even there!) is zero!
I was able to infer all of these things as soon as I realized
that the mechanism of gravity is: Downward flowing ether. Since no
flow… IN can long continue without a corresponding flow… OUT, I
realized that RADIANT energy and high energy particles (NOT gravitons)
was the mechanism of gravity. Since very hot stars and galaxies emit
more radiant energy, then the hotter those are, the greater the
gravity per unit of mass! The above “new science” of mine will have
no trouble at all accounting for the ten fold missing gravitational
force necessary to hold the Universe in its present state of perfect
equilibrium (!).
No… the Universe ISN’T expanding. Light naturally gets longer in
wavelength at greater distances, because light (other light, that is)
that passes through other light rays acts like wedges. The ‘red
shift’ is a consequence of the wedging, NOT a Doppler effect that
should imply an expanding Universe!. The most basic unit of
“creation” is the galaxy. So there have been a great many “Little
Bangs”! — NoEinstein —
.