Saturday, January 2, 2010

Myth Upon Myth Upon Myth



"Since Newton announced his universal law of gravitation, scientists have accepted and educators taught it, and rarely has it been questioned. Occasionally one has the temerity to say that gravitation is a myth, an invented word to cover scientific ignorance." -- C.H. Kilmer, historian, October 1915

"It's not that most of the matter and energy in the universe is dark, but that most cosmologists are totally in the dark about the real nature of the universe." -- Wallace Thornhill, physicist, October 2006

Stephen Smith: MACHOs and WIMPs.

According to cosmologists, the Universe is made mostly of dark matter and dark energy, but they do not know what either is.

A recent press release opens with this question: "Dark Matter Detected for First Time?" It seems ironic to ask, since what they are "detecting" has been one of the most all pervasive, yet most highly speculative investigations since phlogiston.

In previous Pictures of the Day, it was noted that dark matter is an ad hoc theory, an addendum to the gravity-based model of the Universe. As consensus physics proposes, without adding dark matter there is insufficient gravity in the cosmos to account for galaxies bunching together. Without sufficient mass, they should also have decelerated over the eons instead of moving through space at 90% of light speed.

An exotic form of matter was proposed when astronomers realized that stars traveled around the edge of a spiral galaxy with the same angular velocity as stars close to the center. This was a quandary, since according to Newton's theory they should be slower. Therefore, astronomers assumed that a form of dark matter was imparting extra gravitational energy to the stars. It was called "dark" because the theory states that it cannot be detected, except indirectly.

This unseen matter is said to be sustaining all galaxies, preventing them from flying apart. Over the years, research groups have been trying to reconcile the lack of mass in the Universe, particularly in galaxy clusters, with their recessional velocity. There is not enough gravity in the visible stars and gas clouds to account for that velocity, as well as the consolidation of individual galaxies and clusters.

If dark matter exists, according to physicists, then it ought to be expressed through a particle. After all, gravity is based on mass attraction, so if dark matter is holding the stars in their galactic orbits, and pulling those galaxies into clusters, there must be an invisible particle (or particles) responsible for the effect.

If not particles, then perhaps cold, non-radiating matter—burned-out stars, or large planets—are exerting their influences on galactic structure. Those "normal" but invisible objects were called MAssive Compact Halo Objects (MACHOs). Telescopes were scheduled to look for stellar occultations caused by MACHOs, but after years of investigation there have been no results. MACHO scientists have recently thrown in the towel, finally acknowledging that MACHOs are not dark matter candidates.

Weakly Interacting Massive Particle (WIMP) theory has been the chief competitor with MACHO theory for several years. With the demise of the latter theory, scientists have now pinned their hopes on a subatomic particle to account for the necessary gravitational attraction.

In 1999, a consortium of ten research institutions from around the world known as the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search (CDMS) developed a detector that was supposed to "see" the sporadic impacts from WIMPs on other atomic particles.

The CDMS sensor is an array of silicon and germanium crystals that are cooled by liquid helium until they are close to absolute zero. When subatomic particles strike an atomic nucleus in the crystals, it is interpreted as ionization and heat. Since the atomic movement in the sensor is almost stopped, any tiny vibrations caused by a particle's impact are seen as "hits." The sensor has been handicapped by many false readings due to cosmic rays and other ionized particles.

For more than ten years, scientists working on the project have seen nothing to suggest that WIMPs are colliding with the detector. The current press release is simply publicizing further ambiguous results. Are they seeing WIMPs or are they continuing to witness cosmic ray impacts?

From the Electric Universe perspective, electric currents drive the galaxies and their associated stars. Laboratory experiments reveal that the magnetic vortex between twin Birkeland current filaments can create structures that resemble spiral galaxies. Birkeland currents have a longer-range attractive force than gravity, and diminish with the reciprocal of the distance rather than gravity's square of the distance. That alone could account for the anomalous movement of stars as they revolve around the galactic core.

It is the flow of electricity through plasma in space that tends to initiate the effects that we can observe with space-based telescopes and confirm in ground-based research laboratories. It is the electric currents in the cosmos and their associated magnetic fields that should be our focus and not the search for that which can never be found.

8 comments:

Jeffery Keown said...

After all, gravity is based on mass attraction...

In the EU's cartoon version of gravity, perhaps, but reality strongly suggests that Newton was only part of the story. Relativity is the correction to Newtonian physics. It has been shown to be accurate a multitude of times on certain scales, but requires some firming up in the form of extended theories like Dark Matter and Dark Energy for the Really Big Picture.

This is how science works. You don't do one thought experiment and then toss out all of Newton, Einstein, Bohr and Hawking based on a caricature of theory.

Unless, of course, your theory requires caricatures... I mean, if it can't compete on a level playing field with the real thing, why not sell books railing against a falsehood?

It's just like ID vs Evolution. Those bozos (Dembski, Behe, Meyer, our gentle host) don't fight against the real thing, they make up details or outright lie to sell books and to attempt the dismantling of Big Science.

Now, Mr Smith isn't lying, per se, but I suspect he knows better than to suggest that "gravity is only attraction."

Anaconda said...

From the posted article: "After all, gravity is based on mass attraction..."

And Jeffery Keown responds: "In the EU's cartoon version of gravity..."

In what sense is it a "cartoon version" of gravity?

Relativity is a "thought experiment", which in reality is a glorified hypothesis.

Jeffery Keown: "It has been shown to be accurate a multitude of times on certain scales..."

Actually, this is one of the biggest scientific myths out there: General Relativity has been proven many different ways.

Every supposed "confirmation" of General Relativity by way of scientific observation & measurement has an alternative physical explanation.

General Relativity relies on a "thought experiment" that relies on "frame of reference", namely, Man's perception is different depending on where his "frame of reference" is located.

But physical reality only has one frame of reference -- for a specific time and location there is only one set of physical conditions. There are not multiple realities depending on your "frame of reference".

This was Einstein's mistake, he counted "thought experiments" that changed reality by human "frame of reference" as having validity, they don't.

Example:

A man sitting in a falling elevator is weightless by his reckoning.

But he is not weightless, in fact, his weight is what is causing him to fall.

The perception of "weightlessness" for the man as his "frame of reference" is false and a deception.

Weight is still acting on his body.

Einstein made the fatal assumption that the man's perception is reality -- it is not.

And this kind of assumption is riddled through General Relativity.

What is gravity beyond attraction of bodies?

Please explain, as opposed to simply stating by fiat.

After all, it is you, Jeffery Keown, who constantly harps on OilIsMastery for declaring scientific "truths" by fiat.

So-called "dark matter" is an ad hoc addition to keep the gravity "only" model from being falsified.

It is that simple.

And interestingly, that assertion which is the thesis of the linked article, is never rebutted by your comment.

General Relativity has nothing to do with the fact that gravity can't account for the motion of spiral galaxies.

So, Jeffery, you comment is nothing but a distraction to divert attention from the fact that "modern" astronomy has been falsified and "dark matter" has been conjured up to keep it from being falsified.

Quantum_Flux said...

Just as a pointer, physical relativity is dependent on the velocity of a "frame of reference" not on the location of that referance frame Anaconda.

For instance, if somebody on a bus throws a ball straight upwards, then somebody on the ground will see that ball moving upwards and 40 miles per hour in some different direction too corresponding to the velocity of the bus plus the velocity of the ball relative to the bus.

Anaconda said...

Quantum_Flux:

I appreciate your comment and contribution to the discussion.

Taking your example:

There is still only one physical reality.

The bus is going forty miles an hour on top of the rotation of the Earth and the orbit of the Earth and the orbit of the Sun around the Milky Way (and the galaxy is moving through space as well). And the ball is being thrown into the air.

But there is still only one physical reality. Asserting that different "frames of reference" constitute different realities is false.

They are simply different perceptions of the same event.


And it bears repeating, again, only one set of physical conditions are present in any one time and location.

Perception is a human activity.

The map is not the territory.

Never confuse the map for the territory.

Quantum_Flux said...

What happens if that ball is traveling at the same speed, say 50 mph straight up relative to the people sitting on the bus traveling 40 mph relative to the sidewalk and traveling 50 mph at a 3-4-5 angle relative to the people standing on the sidewalk?

The answer is that the time it takes the ball to travel vertically to the ceiling is much shorter for the people sitting on the bus than it is for the people standing on the sidewalk watching the ball in the bus traveling by. However, that means time (verticle velocity) is slowed for the people standing on the sidewalk by 3/5 relative to the people standing on the bus.

Of course, in that case, to reject the fact that the ball travels at constant speed relative to all observers would be to reject the ball-relativity theory. However the ball-relativity theory may be wrong, I don't believe that the light-relativity theory to be wrong though as the math for light-speed relativity has been repeatedly shown to work for the decay times of particles in atom smashers. The rejectors of relativity have a lot of explaning to do.

Anaconda said...

Quantum_Flux:

In your expanded example, notice that this is all about human perception.

The perception of the "people sitting on the bus" and the perception of the "people standing on the sidewalk".

Two different perceptions of the same exact physical event.

Have a stop clock operated by an in situ probe measure it.

That probe will be independent of the human perceptions you are relying on for your axiom.

The map is not the territory.

Human perception is not reality.

QF wrote: "I don't believe that the light-relativity theory to be wrong though as the math for light-speed relativity has been repeatedly shown to work..."

The math is based on abstract a priori assumptions.

In other words: Axiom and deduction.

Empirical science is the opposite: Observation & measurement and induction -- then explanation.

QF: "...the math for light-speed relativity has been repeatedly shown to work for the decay times of particles in atom smashers".

But there are other alternative physical explanations.

QF: "The rejectors of relativity have a lot of explaning to do."

No, the proponents of a "theory" have the burden of demonstration.

Quantum_Flux, a question for you:

How do you falsify General Relativity?

Carl Popper stated if a "theory" can't be falsified, it isn't science.

In other words, if there is no experiment that can falsify a proposed "theory" then it's not good science.

Quantum_Flux said...

Well, true that the burden of proof for special relativity is on the theorists instead of the skeptics, but the status quo is that the theory works for many applications though. While no doubt all scientific theories should be modified in light of new evidence, it is, however, general relativity that deals with gravitation which currently needs to be modified or perhaps quantum physics that should be modified.

As for falsifying General Relativity, well, I think that the issue is rather how to fill in the blanks or how to explain the observed phenomina in more detail. A theory that is vague enough unfortunately can't be falsified, that is the problem with interpretative or allegorical religions too. With astrophysics, unless it is tested in a lab, then it is all falsifiable mathematical hypothesis being used to explain things.

Why have a problem with something you can't quite solve though unless you foresee some practical ends? I have my own hypothesis about the universe using bayesian statistics and probability amplitudes if you are interested in that Anaconda.

Raptor Lewis said...

I know, this may be off-topic, but it needs to be made known how ignorant MOST of you are (except Jeffery Keown.):

Grvaity, a myth? You've replaced the force of attraction between to objects with noticeable mass with EM fields, yet isn't THAT, "Gravitation?" They Seem Synonymous with each other.

The "Expanding Earth Theory" contradicts itself. You say that there is no continental Drift (Which is fact) because of a cool mantle. Yet, you say the Earth is "expanding," Which depends on Convection Currents beneath the crust, requiring a molten mantle, which is the trigger for Continental Drift, which you say is impossible. See how there's a problem with that conjecture? You just contradicted yourself.

Besides, all of you don't know crap about what you are discussing. All of what you are discussing are complex systems that we fail to understand what would happen if the system was plunged into chaos. There is no "smoking gun."