Author Topic: A Quack theory on Dark Matter  (Read 12318 times)

Raistlin

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 259
A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« on: March 30, 2016, 08:16:01 AM »
So all theories on Dark Matter is pseudo quack - so here's mine (Nobel prize to follow - yes I said it first in a drunken or not stupor)

Theory / Hypotheses:
-------------------------------
Dark Matter is very small, at is core; in essence largely distributed space dust (small proton with singular or minimal electron) with neutral magnetic polarization.
Heat from standard matter interaction and/or radiation (gamma etc.) creates polarization shifts in dark matter that creates on mass - the observable
clumping effects; as viewable for standard matter distributions.

By my very virtuous assumptions (just for gags: hundreds of real scientists do this year by year with huge grants) then:
1) It would explain why matter is more closely clumped in the center of our galaxy and the speed of stars throughout is constant.
2) Why dark matter is more prevalent around matter than not.
3) Observations/inferences closer to home using quantum theory/atom smashing have been fruitless thus far. (30 years so far)
4) Lensing effects for non-observable galaxies is possible.

Experimental proof would require the capture of such "dust" preferably outside the influence of
an overwhelmingly(arbitrary statement) gravitational/radiation (perhaps this has always been the problem in detection all along) source.
The deteriorating polarity of "dust" further away from a known matter source - is key to validation.

 

K_F

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1294
  • Anybody out there?
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2016, 05:16:22 PM »
I watched a National Geographic doccy 'Galaxies' the other day.
Showed some interesting stuff.. They had people talking about their theories, and even from a 'layman' pov, one could whack big holes in their theories.
But they were so excited about their ideas... they seemed to ignore those points, or didn't mention the possibilities.

There was the one woman talking about a big black hole at the centre of the galaxy, and the justification for this, was the one star 'whipping' around a so called high gravity spot.
Conclusion = must be a black hole -- My version = could just be a centre of mass (there are a lot of stars in that area) ?

The next was that all the objects in the galaxy were all moving at the same speed around the centre - Well that just laid to rest orbital mechanics that has been used successfully for the past 50 years. How stupid could we have been.

Next was NASA's large computer system to simulate dark matter structure (I think it was) that holds the universe together... 'Lo and behold' the result it produced was exactly what they had predicted.. to the tee. They went to great lengths to explain the 1000's or IBM processors that were working on this 'problem', and how long it would take on a normal computer.
Maybe they should have done that .. it would have cost a lot less to produce a 'canned' result.

The thing is that I can well believe that these 'researchers' are doing some work.. but shyte.. to come up this and then put it out for public consumption.
I worked in the same environment and saw this type of Noddy science that went on.. these people are not researchers, they shouldn't be allowed to clean the toilet of a real Research Scientist.
 :biggrin:
'Sire, Sire!... the peasants are Revolting !!!'
'Yes, they are.. aren't they....'

K_F

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1294
  • Anybody out there?
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2016, 05:30:53 PM »
Sorry.. back to dark matter  :icon_mrgreen:

My take (I should be on National Geographic), is that like gyroscopes, rotating systems line up wrt local gravity lines.
With all the spiral galaxies one could 'draw' gravity lines and then compare that to the gravity of all the known systems.
Any anomalies would most likely be 'dark matter', but one would get a resultant gravity of this matter rather than it 'exact' location.

I suppose one could still work out a local distribution of matter, if one divides the galaxy into volumes and work from there.
That's for spiral galaxies, Now Cluster galaxies could be where there are gravitational Null points, and these could be key features in deciphering Dark Matter.

I'll wait for the National Geographic film crew ... ;)
'Sire, Sire!... the peasants are Revolting !!!'
'Yes, they are.. aren't they....'

rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1383
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2016, 04:19:48 AM »
Raistlin, "small proton with singular or minimal electron) with neutral magnetic polarization"

All protons are the same size, on the order of 10^-15 m - so "small" is redundant. They are accompanied often by a "singular" electron - that's called "hydrogen". Perhaps you could call its magnetic moment "polarization", not the normal term. It's one Bohr magneton - not "neutral".

Bottom line your "space dust" is hydrogen. They know pretty well where it is and how much - it's not dark matter.

K_F, the BH at center of many (almost all) galaxies is definitely a very heavy dense concentration of matter. It can't be just a "center of mass" of a lot of stars, for various good reasons. For instance the mass has to be something like 4 million Sols in Milky Way to account for observed motions. If that was a bunch of stars it would take a lot of room (at least 100 light years diameter, absolute min), and they would be very noticeable. No it has to be concentrated. That's what they call a BH. Nothing strange about that, the only craziness is the idea of what goes on inside such an object: a singularity which allows time travel etc. That's just theoretical BS. But the astronomical observations are not, there's got to be something exotic there. So when they say "BH" just imagine that, and forget all the wormhole BS you may have heard.

Objects in galaxy (like us) moving at same speed: that's roughly true, which of course violates Newtonian orbital mechanics as you say. This is precisely the reason they assume dark matter. (Other reasons too).

No question, a lot of BS among those physicists. Very sad because the real stuff sounds, at first glance, like BS also, so without a lot of digging you can't tell the difference. Makes the proverbial "intelligent layman" just give up and send the whole lot of them to the devil.

You mention gyroscopic influences being involved - that's like "gravitomagnetism" which is semi-respectable idea.

My personal whacko theory is that BH's are a new phase of matter which produces torsional gravity, out to great distances. That's what causes the anomalies they misinterpret as Dark Matter. Could be totally wrong, but if not: remember, you heard it here first!

Anyway - as I've mentioned b4 I know this stuff well, so if you have questions ask, very few physicists can explain it better because their primary motivation is to show off and baffle the audience, whereas mine is to explain. Plus for the most part their teaching skills are normal.

BTW there's a joke physicists at the local uni make about "Dark Matter" which is not suitable for public consumption, but you can imagine.
I am NaN ;)

hutch--

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Mnemonic Driven API Grinder
    • The MASM32 SDK
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2016, 09:15:29 AM »
I havew always had this problem with theories of cosmology, its awful hard to get out there and have a good look at what is there but there is a technology coming using nuclear power to make propulsion devices that have far greater life then the current rocket technology and if this can be got going (both American and Russian sources) it will drastically reduce space travel time and the capacity to maneuver space vehicles will make controlled orbiting a reality around distant objects. I doubt this technology will get space crafts to other solar systems but at least its a step to getting further faster.
hutch at movsd dot com
http://www.masm32.com    :biggrin:  :biggrin:

rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1383
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2016, 01:40:22 PM »
Theorizing about cosmology (origin of universe etc) is fine but should not be taken seriously. Unfortunately they do take it seriously so I agree with you, it's a problem. When our rockets can spread us throughout this system - even to nearby stars - cosmology will be a little more reliable. But at least a million, more like a billion, years of expansion must occur before I'll really believe a word of it.

However "local" cosmology - i.e. astronomy - is different. Some of that knowledge (like, how stars work) is pretty solid.
I am NaN ;)

FORTRANS

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 946
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #6 on: April 03, 2016, 11:00:26 PM »
Hi

However "local" cosmology - i.e. astronomy - is different. Some of that knowledge (like, how stars work) is pretty solid.

   Actually, a pretty plasma.

Cheers,

Steve N.

rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1383
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #7 on: April 04, 2016, 01:28:35 AM »
The knowledge is unlikely to be either solid or plasma. My guess, it's a path through neurons mediated by semi-static ionic potentials, located in the neocortex, controlled by the thalamus, long-term stored in (of all places) the cerebellum. Or perhaps it's the EM field generated as neuronic firings occur along that path; or a quantum wave associated thereto; or ... well, nobody knows. But it's probably not a plasma!
I am NaN ;)

nidud

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1411
    • https://github.com/nidud/asmc
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #8 on: April 04, 2016, 02:12:10 AM »
Well, back to the virtual reality theory again  :biggrin:

If the theory is correct the periodical system must be infinite. Elements in the twilight zone and beyond will then exist but be out of reach.

If they disappear the theory is correct but if they just dissolve into lesser dense elements then dark matter do not exist, so what really happens?

Bohr claimed that atoms with atomic number greater than 137 would require electrons to be travelling faster than the speed of light, but the model is inaccurate when applied to such an element.

So what is the maximum atomic number?

rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1383
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #9 on: April 04, 2016, 03:54:14 AM »
The max atomic number turns out to be 173.

Hydrogen s-orbital electron goes approx. 1/137 c - alpha constant x speed of light. You might object that it's supposed to be a "cloud", a stationary wave function making a standing spherical wave, which doesn't move at all. Ignore that - for this exercise we suppose it actually orbits the proton, at 1/137 c.

At lower atomic numbers, say N, the inner electron goes N * alpha. The speed of the first orbit is simply proportional to the central force. If that doesn't sound right from Newtonian mechanics, note that it orbits closer.

However as N increases, this simple linear relation holds only approximately. The inner electron goes slower than N * alpha, due to the influence of all those outer electrons. That's why the largest possible atom (based on this criterion only) is more than 137. Detailed calculations show it's 173 instead.

As for infinite periodic table - must admit I've never heard of it, sounds incorrect.
I am NaN ;)

nidud

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1411
    • https://github.com/nidud/asmc
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #10 on: April 04, 2016, 04:43:56 AM »
Think the idea of an emulated reality is that the clock frequency in the emulation is lower so when c increases the table expands.

rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1383
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #11 on: April 04, 2016, 11:21:59 AM »
Makes some sense, nidud, if you want an opinion give me a reference.

BTW hope you're doing well. Watch out for those refugees!
I am NaN ;)

nidud

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1411
    • https://github.com/nidud/asmc
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #12 on: April 04, 2016, 02:44:32 PM »
It’s basically the idea that this reality is a simulation, so I made a recursive joke where the creators most likely lived in the matrix themselves given the meaning of life then will be to create a virtual reality sophisticated enough to create a new one.

Each level will then have a fixed clock frequency lower than the previous one, which in turn will have an impact on the maximum atomic number.

Well, here’s the punch line of the joke:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality

Quote
The simulation argument also has implications for existential risks. If we are living in a simulation, then it's possible that our simulation could get shut down. Many futurists have speculated about how we can avoid this outcome. Ray Kurzweil argues in The Singularity is Near that we should be interesting to our simulators, and that bringing about the Singularity is probably the most interesting event that could happen. The philosopher Phil Torres has argued that the simulation argument itself leads to the conclusion that, if we run simulations in the future, then there almost certainly exists a stack of nested simulations, with ours located towards the bottom. Since annihilation is inherited downwards, any terminal event in a simulation "above" ours would be a terminal event for us. If there are many simulations above us, then the risk of an existential catastrophe could be significant.

rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1383
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #13 on: April 04, 2016, 06:36:11 PM »
Oh, that type of simulation! I think I beat Hans Moravec with my simulation hypothesis (1998). Examining physics we see some evidence for it, Planck's constant and speed-of-light may be time slice and simulation "fence", and so on. I still don't see my key arguments anywhere, there are a few more. At least I can't say they stole my ideas, unless it was just the basic one of the simulation possibility. It's absolutely amazing what idiots these so-called "philosophers" like Deutsch are (actually haven't read Moravec; he couldn't possibly be as abysmal as the others that I have read).

It's wrong to suppose each level "must" have lower clock frequency in the sense you mean, for a variety of reasons ... Believe me your own thoughts on the matter are worth more than all of these fools put together (with possible exception of Moravec, as mentioned)
I am NaN ;)

rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1383
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #14 on: April 05, 2016, 02:35:40 AM »
Looked into it a bit, seems Moravec beat me by 2 years. Have to read him someday. Of course my paper was just "published" on the internet; at that time real physicists hated it. BTW I didn't propose simulation as "real" just an interesting possibility - and it still is.

Re. Deutsch - he's not that stupid! I get annoyed when I see his inferior philosophical thoughts getting such attention. But he makes lots of good points when he's not obsessing about MWI.

Anyway if you want to know how a simulation might really work, ask - it's much more interesting than those guys imagine
I am NaN ;)