Back to Home

Blackholes2 Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes II | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Cool Ideas Krill

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on May 20, 2004 04:37:13 UTC

Hi Gary,

I'll have a shot at figuring this out:

"my gripe with dark matter is it apparently does not exist in our solar system. the rotational drag on the sun is consistent with the mass of known orbital bodies. i am more inclined to believe gravity is repulsive at great distances. i also suspect it explains the speed of light, hubbles constant and the cosmic background radiation.

ps. my stellar rate of evolution comment was mainly about the apparent disregard for time dilation effects on objects such as neutron stars."

The speed of light was alleged to have been shown to be constant in all directions by the Michelson Morley experiment. But I found a way of looking at that expewriment (notes not here just now) that sugests the experimental set up was blind to "direction"; that means if there had been an ether that the Earth moved through, that favoured direction would not have been picked up by the experiment.

Some people have questioned the assumption of a rigid geometrical space regarding interpreting the universe.

What if, when looking at a very distant object like a galaxy, an illusion is generated in some ways similar to the flatening affect you get when you look at craters on the moon nearer the edges compared to at the center of the moon's visible side?

What if the ability to define "direction" in space is distorted when comparing the edges of galaxies to the center?

If "direction" is "fuzzy" nearer the edges; given the idea that what we call "mass" could be interpreted as "room to move" so a kind of uncertainty within a reference frame; the "missing mass" may be the "diffraction of the definition of "distance" when trying to impose a rigid concept of space on to a very distant object.

In this case the "diffraction grating" is generated by the imposition of a grid by the scientific observer on to the space seen in the telescope.

We know that the craters near the edge of the moon's face; though they look "dragged" into elliptical shapes, are just as circular as the other craters seen near the center of the face we see of the moon.

Maybe when you look at something far enough away, the very definition of "distance" is dragged?

It may be that the galaxy has a wider diameter than we think! But we see it with a narrower diameter, due to bending of light at great distances by mass (like Einstein's idea of large mass bends light).

In this case the "mass" is "virtual":

example: an asteroid hits Earth. They say that (allowing for drift due to Earth's rotation) that at the point on Earth's surface opposite (the antipode) the impact site, you get a lot of debris raining down due to intersection of many radiating paths that originated from the impact site.

Take a point half-way to any galaxy from here: this point could be regarded as the "virtual mass"; treating Earth and distance galaxy as if each is an image/object on either side of a very long tube with a mutual comparison point in the middle (like there is a tube connecting Earth to a distant galazy and half-way there is a pin-hole with Earth and galaxy like opposite ends of a giant pinhole camera.

The comparison lines drawn between Earth and the galaxy all cross-over at a point in space not necessarily half-way but at the mutual "focal" point or something say?

The Hubble constant would be a similar construction to the speed-of-light constant; a "flexi-number" to "renormalise the different values for mass and charge of the two electrons" here I expand the concepts "mass" "charge" and "electron" into pattern templates.

I treat "electron" as "modification"; "mass" as "room to move in a possible fixed frame" and "charge" as "bias" (so "charge" becomes the influence of the frame).

Think of Earth and the distant galaxy as locked on to the edges of a giant spinning wheel: if instead of regarding our definitions of things on Earth as "spinning" around the defiintions of things on the distant galaxy; and vice versa; we regard them both as locked together in a single reference frame: its like they have a mutual center of spin.

("Spin" here is used metaphorically to describe "influence"; the real space appears to be Heaven: mutual harmony where each party gives room to the other to create, it is said "He who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son Of God has already overcome the world"; this might mean that any counting is through Him (He is the Door, the beginning and end of whgat we call "mathematics" say?)

The "Hubble constant" may be "a renormalisation group": what I mean here is the more galaxies one compares and add to the mixture; the more it will seem that there is a "constant" about which their mutual comparisons "rotate"?

It would be a cosmic version of Planck's constant (Planl's constant appears to be "the scalke of scale": the more paragraphs you use the term "mile" and "hour" in; the more your collection of paragraphs themselves project a kind of holographic fixed definition of "mile" and "hour" by self-reference even if you have no external definition of "mile" and "hour".

The "speed of light constant": This appears to be a projection from NOT renormalising: fromn the fact that each paragrah that contains the word "mile" and the word "hour" you project a "speed of speed": an "outer limits" definition of "mile : hour" TOGETHER that involves "every way they can come together (which involves LOGICAL CONSISTENCY ).

This comparison game of "every way they can be together" is called "quantum electro-dynamics" and dissolves "special relativity" and "general relativity" into each other so they can swap roles. This is why you cannot combine QED with Relativity theory: QED involves every way relativity theory can happen; to add more would give: a big bang and a background radiation.

In this case the "big bang" is broken into loops; the background radiation is organised as a graph with chaotic features (every way the graph can happen) and the whole thing is called "loop quantum gravity" (bit rough: needs tidying this description).

Mathematics involves: big bangs PLUS background radiation:

Each number is a big bang; the many ways numbers can factorise (is "10" :"5 lots of 2" or just "ten ones" ?)

Mathematics PLUS QED gives interference fringes between LOGIC TOGETHERNESS (truth)(LOVE: togetheness that is each letting be the other so each lives) and math big-bangs and math background radiation.

This results in something called "the magnetic moment of an electron" and a number in math that appears to be a representation of "the minimum definition of: base-10 number-line MEETS Logic .

Cosmic background radiation: like a microwave oven: if "background" is not rigid but fixed locally by interactions (if the universe is alive not dead so not rigid) then to define "cosmic background" would generate two polarized extremes: one is "big bang" the other is "big fuzzyness" (the opposite of an instant is a blur?).

This is really weird (and subject to revision because it seems that "if you had faith as grain of mustard seed you could say to this mountain "move" and it would move"):

but Dr. Richard Stafford's idea that science "is a made up story" seems implicit here. But that is not the whole picture:
if we are surrounded by the kingdom of heaven and everything is "a possibility" waiting our "signature": that doesn't mean reality isn't real just that we are not passive observers of the universe but can be actively involved in it?

the above ideas are only rough....


Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins