Long-lost dark matter might help fix huge problem in physics

Jan 6, 2020
38
5
55
Of course we see only a small fraction of a larger universe. The primal singularity was a magnificently compressed black hole accreted from more black holes than there are currently galaxies in the universe. Being a black hole with an escape velocity in the trillions of times the speed of light or more, actual expansion is impossible. The expansion phenomena we see is a combination of 2 factors: uniform contraction of the contents of the black hole we inhabit creates the illusion within that the universe is enlarging because every object and energetic projection in it appears to grow further apart as everything shrinks together. As this contraction continues, there is a local gravitational reduction; most of the universe remains invisible locally because light from further sections is inaccessible behind the veil of the escape velocity from those parts of our black hole to our local section not having reduced below the speed of light yet. As everything shrinks together, gravity is reduced locally and more universe becomes visible. Because no real expansion is involved, it is even possible for it to appear as if the universe is "expanding" faster than the speed of light. The side away from us of greatest mass would appear to expand less quickly than the side with less mass therefore, which accounts for uneven "expansion". This accounts for apparent observations of uneven "expansion" of the universe... biased escape velocity reduction revelation of gravitationally hidden portions of the black hole which the universe is, already present and hidden by directionally biased escape velocity internal scwartzchild fields.
 
Apr 16, 2020
3
1
10
The creationists will never get the math to add up no matter how many fudge factors they use, because the universe is in a steady-state and is not expanding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GTJohn70
Jan 6, 2020
38
5
55
The creationists will never get the math to add up no matter how many fudge factors they use, because the universe is in a steady-state and is not expanding.
I agree that the universe isn't expanding as such. Steady state is another thing entirely. By analogy: I get up in the morning and see substantially the same face I saw the day before, but time has passed, nutrients processed, motion through space without and space within has occured, memories formed, cells grown, apopted, shed. If I remain in a true "steady state", I am not alive.
Likewise, "It still moves" in the universe, be it Gallileos planets in retrograde motion, distant galaxies or fish in the sea. Change happens continuously. Life and existence ends if change stops... Yet still then life goes on and planets and stars are born, evolve and die.

What sort of creationists do you speak of? Biblical creationists have an infinitely mutable readymade convenient all purpose fudge factor called "God" which can easily be used to conveniently account for any observed fact, or unobserved hypothecation.

Those who speak of the natural creation of the universe attempt to account for observed phenomena with natural hypothesis and theory. At times, in order to maintain consistency with observations, theories change, and new hypotheses are plaused. The one thing that doesn't stay the same is the universe... even the ideations of it's sentient inhabitants change. The so called " steady state" theory of universal evolution postulates, not a constant, unchanging universal plenum, but cycles... Though the overall content in those theories is referred to as "steady state", that theory too has change accounted within it. The only plausible steady state is the atheists view of the process of the mind after death.
 
Jan 16, 2020
6
4
35
Decades ago, when I first started to study physics, one of the things we learned was that you can convert matter to energy, you can convert energy to matter (though it takes a lot of effort) but you cannot destroy either. If this ancient 'dark matter' decayed into nothing, just how did that work? Some theorize that matter folds into another dimension when it enters a huge black hole. If that is the case, and we find the entire universe is spinning, then perhaps centrifugal forces are pulling the galaxies outward faster as mass in the center of the universe vanishes. Just a thought.
 
Jan 6, 2020
38
5
55
Decades ago, when I first started to study physics, one of the things we learned was that you can convert matter to energy, you can convert energy to matter (though it takes a lot of effort) but you cannot destroy either. If this ancient 'dark matter' decayed into nothing, just how did that work? Some theorize that matter folds into another dimension when it enters a huge black hole. If that is the case, and we find the entire universe is spinning, then perhaps centrifugal forces are pulling the galaxies outward faster as mass in the center of the universe vanishes. Just a thought.
If as I have hypothecated the universe is the inside of a black hole (it can in fact be nothing else) then quantum evaporation could account for disappearing matter. But in that case, matter would continue to disappear regardless. I think you're right: disappearing dark matter isn't there( tee hee!)
 
Jan 3, 2020
121
8
105
A huge problem with these common-as-grains-on-the-beach suggestions is that measurement problems is still the most likely outcome, that these types of additions screw up part of the simple LCDM model, and in this case that the light decay products are nowhere seen (c.f. searches for light axion like particles).

But we'll see.
 
Jan 3, 2020
121
8
105
Of course we see only a small fraction of a larger universe. The primal singularity was a magnificently compressed black hole accreted from more black holes than there are currently galaxies in the universe. Being a black hole with an escape velocity in the trillions of times the speed of light or more, actual expansion is impossible. The expansion phenomena we see is a combination of 2 factors: uniform contraction of the contents of the black hole we inhabit creates the illusion within that the universe is enlarging because every object and energetic projection in it appears to grow further apart as everything shrinks together. As this contraction continues, there is a local gravitational reduction; most of the universe remains invisible locally because light from further sections is inaccessible behind the veil of the escape velocity from those parts of our black hole to our local section not having reduced below the speed of light yet. As everything shrinks together, gravity is reduced locally and more universe becomes visible. Because no real expansion is involved, it is even possible for it to appear as if the universe is "expanding" faster than the speed of light. The side away from us of greatest mass would appear to expand less quickly than the side with less mass therefore, which accounts for uneven "expansion". This accounts for apparent observations of uneven "expansion" of the universe... biased escape velocity reduction revelation of gravitationally hidden portions of the black hole which the universe is, already present and hidden by directionally biased escape velocity internal scwartzchild fields.
The universe was never a black hole for the simple reason that a black hole has an outside while the universe has none.
 
Jan 3, 2020
121
8
105
The creationists will never get the math to add up no matter how many fudge factors they use, because the universe is in a steady-state and is not expanding.
The people that strawman science as 'creationist' - or reject the readily observed expansion of the universe - and repeat themselves endlessly - will never get anywhere with others.
 
Last edited:
Jan 3, 2020
121
8
105
I agree that the universe isn't expanding as such. Steady state is another thing entirely. By analogy: I get up in the morning and see substantially the same face I saw the day before, but time has passed, nutrients processed, motion through space without and space within has occured, memories formed, cells grown, apopted, shed. If I remain in a true "steady state", I am not alive.
Likewise, "It still moves" in the universe, be it Gallileos planets in retrograde motion, distant galaxies or fish in the sea. Change happens continuously. Life and existence ends if change stops... Yet still then life goes on and planets and stars are born, evolve and die.

What sort of creationists do you speak of? Biblical creationists have an infinitely mutable readymade convenient all purpose fudge factor called "God" which can easily be used to conveniently account for any observed fact, or unobserved hypothecation.

Those who speak of the natural creation of the universe attempt to account for observed phenomena with natural hypothesis and theory. At times, in order to maintain consistency with observations, theories change, and new hypotheses are plaused. The one thing that doesn't stay the same is the universe... even the ideations of it's sentient inhabitants change. The so called " steady state" theory of universal evolution postulates, not a constant, unchanging universal plenum, but cycles... Though the overall content in those theories is referred to as "steady state", that theory too has change accounted within it. The only plausible steady state is the atheists view of the process of the mind after death.
It is an observed fact that the universe expands.

Science describes processes and outcomes, here of the processes in LCDM, not 'creation'. What process or outcome do you have questions about? LCDM is self consistent, so there is no in-principle problem. Most people who comment here, like the 'creationism' comment you respond to, don't know what they discuss.

You don't need to be a theological "atheist"* to discuss the brain-body, since the LHC has shown between 2012 and 2017 that there isn't enough residual action between standard model particles to have a theological 'soul', 'mind', 'afterlife' or 'rebirth'. The body with brain is a biochemical machine, which breaks down at death.

*) I dropped out of the theological scale 2018, since it now suffice to be secular to place all of astrology, theology, homeopathy et cetera in the same compartment labeled "snake oil".
 
Last edited:
Jan 3, 2020
121
8
105
Decades ago, when I first started to study physics, one of the things we learned was that you can convert matter to energy, you can convert energy to matter (though it takes a lot of effort) but you cannot destroy either. If this ancient 'dark matter' decayed into nothing, just how did that work? Some theorize that matter folds into another dimension when it enters a huge black hole. If that is the case, and we find the entire universe is spinning, then perhaps centrifugal forces are pulling the galaxies outward faster as mass in the center of the universe vanishes. Just a thought.
In case you missed it, the article describe the outcome (lighter, less influential, particles).

The CMB radiation show the universe is not spinning, and that the universe has no "center". On the last point, see here:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1Q8tS-9hYo
 
Jan 23, 2020
10
10
35
I agree that the universe isn't expanding as such. Steady state is another thing entirely. By analogy: I get up in the morning and see substantially the same face I saw the day before, but time has passed, nutrients processed, motion through space without and space within has occured, memories formed, cells grown, apopted, shed. If I remain in a true "steady state", I am not alive.
Likewise, "It still moves" in the universe, be it Gallileos planets in retrograde motion, distant galaxies or fish in the sea. Change happens continuously. Life and existence ends if change stops... Yet still then life goes on and planets and stars are born, evolve and die.

What sort of creationists do you speak of? Biblical creationists have an infinitely mutable readymade convenient all purpose fudge factor called "God" which can easily be used to conveniently account for any observed fact, or unobserved hypothecation.

Those who speak of the natural creation of the universe attempt to account for observed phenomena with natural hypothesis and theory. At times, in order to maintain consistency with observations, theories change, and new hypotheses are plaused. The one thing that doesn't stay the same is the universe... even the ideations of it's sentient inhabitants change. The so called " steady state" theory of universal evolution postulates, not a constant, unchanging universal plenum, but cycles... Though the overall content in those theories is referred to as "steady state", that theory too has change accounted within it. The only plausible steady state is the atheists view of the process of the mind after death.
The entire theroy for the Big Bang is seated in man's need to have a beginning and an end. For some reason the cosmologists seem to want to put all their eggs in a basket of mathmatical equations that they keep changing and adding "constants" to in order to make them work out for the Big Bang theory of the year. They have committed themselves to the math and theory so much, they are now unable to accept anything else regardless of physical evidence that contradicts their theory. It is no longer science but politics in the world of physics now and anyone who contradicts the reigning Big Bang is ignored or ostracized to extentinction. I guess they would wish the Hubble Telescope had never been developed since it is discovering objects that are older than the Big Bang would allow and elements in places they should never be. So much for all those Big Bang theorists who write all those books and produce all those TV shows to show us how smart they are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hayseed
Jan 6, 2020
38
5
55
It is an observed fact that the universe expands.

Science describes processes and outcomes, here of the processes in LCDM, not 'creation'. What process or outcome do you have questions about? LCDM is self consistent, so there is no in-principle problem. Most people who comment here, like the 'creationism' comment you respond to, don't know what they discuss.

You don't need to be a theological "atheist"* to discuss the brain-body, since the LHC has shown between 2012 and 2017 that there isn't enough residual action between standard model particles to have a theological 'soul', 'mind', 'afterlife' or 'rebirth'. The body with brain is a biochemical machine, which breaks down at death.

*) I dropped out of the theological scale 2018, since it now suffice to be secular to place all of astrology, theology, homeopathy et cetera in the same compartment labeled "snake oil".
Stop insulting snake oil by putting it in the same category as astrology! You can use it to get chicken!
 
Jan 6, 2020
38
5
55
I hate my phone! That's "
Stop insulting snake oil by putting it in the same category as astrology! You can use it to get chicken!
That's "you can use it to fry chicken". And the universe doesn't expand... That's impossible. The universe has an escape velocity of trillions of times the speed of light so expansion is an illusion... It APPEARS to expand. The contents are uniformly contracting/shrinking causing the appearance within of expansion. It is in a black hole so massive it contains internal as well as external Schwartzchild fields. As the contents contract local gravitation is reduced causing internal escape velocity reductions within to below the speed of light, reducing internal Schwartzchild fields and revealing more of the universe to the zone we inhabit, creating the illusion of still yet more expansion where no such expansion exists. This makes far more sense than an object with an escape velocity in the trillions plus times the speed of light range bursting into expansion. My T.V. shows various stars who are long dead performing. That doesn't mean they are alive. The universe appearing to expand faster than the speed of light similarly fails to prove it is. Excuse me... I have to respond to a mountain lion.
 
Apr 23, 2020
18
3
30
Sounds like dark matter is creating more problems then it is solving. If a neutrino barely interact with theweak nuclear force, and gravity, which all we know about is that it originates from mass. Why, would an dark or antimatter substance have any affect on gravity? Answer is that it wouldn’t interact with it. As we all know, all particles need want to stay alive. They want it sooo badly, they are willing to change from what they are , just to bind together and not go to nuclear decay. Here is the equation 1 more time in case y’all forgot. E=mc2. Where to simply explain energy is equal to mass. Which explains everything about everything. All is the same and not the same , at the exact same time. From the beginning to the end and all over again. Energy is mass which is force and the constant, which is everything in between. I am you, you are me, earth is the moon, and Jupiter is Neptune. Our galaxy is the andromeda’s galaxy, at a different time or space , viewed from our perspective or relativity of everything at the moment when we finally understand that it is all the same thing view from a certain relatively related time where each ever changing same thing sees itself at a different time , space, or position that is relitive to where it’s self consciousness sees itself and doesn’t recognize that it is the same thing but has changed because of its relative position at the moment. Than you for reading. But I knew you would because you are me , that look different from where I’m at right now!!!!! Goodnight
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY