missing mass

[N0B0DY]

Aside from your macroscopic interstellar reference, Dave, the laws shouldn't change at the QM scale either, but most scientists suggest that they do.

The strong force can act exactly according to gravitational laws, if the strong force is replaced by coulomb's law. Then quarks and squarks can be neglected, instead of infinities.

[dleviwing]

Quite right Nobody; that’s why I view the forces of nature as interactions of the FS in accordance to its absolute properties of motion and bonding that determines the various states of the substance. Each force is nothing more than a fundamental action of converting one form of motion to a more uniform state of motion or visa versa; the act of condensing the FS or the act of expanding the FS.

The problem with QM is that it is portrayed as something it is NOT. QM is a statistical methodology of performing scientific experimentation and the analysis of the data; nothing more and nothing less! BS is BS whether you find it in the farmer’s field or on the university campus.

[Pramod Desai]

Dear Lloys, Jeff, dleviwing

I understand dleviwing's reply. What I wonder, when I say about the process of cognizance, is how do we guard against the possibility that the very process of investigation affects the reality and we end of with a distorted version of it. And then there are as many versions as are the investigators. But then there is some objective reality otherwise the laws of science as known to us and the working of our lives based on them would not have been functioning. SO where is the catch?

Thanks and regards.

Pramod

[AntonioLao]

Is 'r' constant? What if r^2 = infinity

r is not a constant. As a position vector its scalar product with absolute acceleration is a constant square of light speed. So if r approaches infinity then the absolute acceleration approaches zero. From Galileo's experiments it was proven that the local acceleration of gravity small g does not depend on the inertial mass m. It depends on the big mass M. more later.

[dleviwing]

r is not a constant. As a position vector its scalar product with absolute acceleration is a constant square of light speed. So if r approaches infinity then the absolute acceleration approaches zero. From Galileo's experiments it was proven that the local acceleration of gravity small g does not depend on the inertial mass m. It depends on the big mass M. more later.

Antonio;
Quite true when talking local environment; big "M" is the important factor. When we start talking the expanse of the universe, little "m" may become more critical to the big “G”.

I understand dleviwing's reply. What I wonder, when I say about the process of cognizance, is how do we guard against the possibility that the very process of investigation affects the reality and we end of with a distorted version of it. And then there are as many versions as are the investigators. But then there is some objective reality otherwise the laws of science as known to us and the working of our lives based on them would not have been functioning. SO where is the catch?

PD;
The academic systems need to be fixed such that they actually teach; they are doing more indoctrination now than teaching.

[neutralino]

Antonio, would you please take a look at the math in this paper: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...711.0770v1.pdf and see if you agree? Not all the answers are given, but I think he's on the right track. Let me know what you think?

Regards,
Lloyd

Not sure if you've seen this, but I started a thread on this paper, I think a little before you posted here. Anyway, I've added a link to today's audio seminar to the thread here

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Not sure if you've seen this, but I started a thread on this paper, I think a little before you posted here. Anyway, I've added a link to today's audio seminar to the thread here

Thanks Neutralino, and I have read it already. It's headed in the right direction, but lacks completeness, as the author states. Maybe he'll have a chance at the Parimeter Institute, to expand his ideas. Here's a new link, I think everyone should check out, as it explains a lot about the possible geometry of space: http://www.hypergeometricaluniverse.com/pdfs/1.pdf

The Hypergeometrical Universe

Published in Quantization in Astrophysics, Brownian Motion, and Supersymmetry
by editors: Florentin Smarandache; V. Christianto

Read the intro, TOC, and conclusions first, as it makes it easier to understand... I think it adds greatly to explaining universal field mechanics, especially the scalar wave dynamics...

Thanks,
Lloyd

[Ingvar]

As I see it, the only force that drives the idea of the existence of a mysterious dark matter or dark energy is the erroneous presumption that all the matter in the Universe was created by a Big Bang.

How does the math look if we presume something else? For example, if we presume that creation continues at the periphery of the Universe, with its event horizon expanding as a matter of course as the space that is created increases perpetually in volume?

Dark matter is a misinterpretation of the galaxies' velocity curve.
Because.
Scientists have misinterpreted the orbital velocity as angular velocity.
If you understand that a galaxy's two arms are in balance, you understand that you shall use only the half of Newton's gravity equation when you calculating.
And you find that:
The forces in Newton's gravity equation and in the centripetal equation are in equilibrium.
Consequently:
No dark matter is needed to explain the rotation curve.

No dark energy is needed because there is no expansion of the universe.
The expansion of universe is a misinterpretation of the galaxies' radiation that is displaced (redshifted spectral-lines) by the entropy-effect towards equilibrium.
That entropy-displacement implies acceleration of the radiation.
The same entropy-law is behind hydrodnamics, electrodynamics (light), and air-dynamics (sound), but by different and specific constants.

See the interesting pictures, experiments and mathematical derivations at my webb-site:
http://www.theuniphysics.info

Ingvar, Sweden

See also the interesting result at google by the key-words:
theory +physics

[AntonioLao]

take a look at the math in this paper: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...711.0770v1.pdf and see if you agree?

Sorry, I don't understand enough E8 math to agree or not. But it looks impressive. What I really wanted is to make fusion possible, cold or hot doesn't matter.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Sorry, I don't understand enough E8 math to agree or not. But it looks impressive. What I really wanted is to make fusion possible, cold or hot doesn't matter.

Yes Antonio, cold fusion is one of my dreams also. A physicist friend of mine mentioned to me that, somehow removing electrons in certain mixtures or structures would do it, but I don't know of any way to remove, just the electrons, do you...? And then, I don't know if that may work, either...? They're what seems to be stopping the fusion, at least until we get enough of them moving, in nuclear reactors, etc...

As to hot fusion, as in the first star/black hole, it may have been cold fusion first, leading to hot fusion. At least, it's another possibility, since the universe must have first been cold... So I've been trying to theorize the cold fusion side of the equation, from primal universal conditions. So far, to me anyway, gravity is not an attractive force, at all___it's a repulsive force, the force of aggregate hydrodynamics of black-hole mass-entropy cycles. IMO, there is nothing in the universe that attracts, even magnetism repulses. The repulsion of aggregate em waves, through spiraling, chiraling, precessing paths, pass from magnet source and slow in c velocity, to -c velocity upon re-entry, thus have mass expanding size, thus increasing the hydrodynamic effect on re-entry, as opposed to exiting the source magnet. I see gravity working the same way, as just another velocity loss of exiting em-waves from source matter. DSR(Doubly Special Relativity), which I prefer to call Deep Special Relativity, is heading in this direction also. I think we may be able to prove some of these ideas, by measuring the true c velocity of incoming Gamma-rays, verses the outgoing em-waves' differences of true c and -c velocities. Most have said you can't measure the difference, but my theorizing tells me we can, by first realizing what must be filtered, by our more accurate instruments of today, as verses the past. If DSR is proved to be true, as these very experiments are, at present, being set up by members of the Parimeter Institute, in Canada, then we have a whole new ball game set in play. I await the results.

As a clarification of what I wrote above, if em-waves leave a source faster than re-entry, the mass-energy is greater, yet smaller in size, thus having less hydrodynamic footprint, on the aggregate em-wave field, it's passing through, yet if slowing on re-entry, has a larger hydrodynamic footprint, on the aggregate em-wave field, thus accounting for both magnetism's forces and gravity's forces. If true, then all universal gravity is, is the hydrodynamic differences of aggregate mass velocities' source changes, over exit and re-entry velocities, verses the aggregate presence of all em-waves, in its re-entry paths...

Of course, this is only theory, at present, but the pieces all seem to fit, so far... At first I couldn't figure the thermal factors verses the hydrodynamic factors, until I realized the hydrodynamic mass velocity factors outweigh the thermal factors on exit, as velocity increases at source, and the mass expansion factors outweigh the thermal factors of slowing re-entry dynamics... The theory works for me, and also explains all initial conditions of finite formations of matter from a fundamental substance, which I think would have to be photons, since that's all that present matter finally decays into... I am also still awaiting the proton decay, the standard model predicts, as I think it must also someday, decay... See what you think...

Regards,
Lloyd