Back for my stoning

[Triodit]

OK guys, as per my title I'm hear to yell and then get told I'm wronge out of hand so let get to it!.


Todays topic is "Dark Matter"

This fall's into the catigory of "make beleive math" I wise man once describe math as the means to describe. but was careful to point out that in and of its self math it's the say all. After all if you make the equaitions complicated enough and trunkate the remanders you can prove that 5=3.

My last gripe was on the super string. I offered the theroy that instead of being magic, the photon was the diamanetic of the gavititional world. a very small partical that repels. in affect an anti gaviton.

I offer the same thing to explain the "Magic" of dark matter. Instead of some thing that is masive but unditactable. it's the pressure of the light pushing things away from the brightest area.

This theory is open to all I ask only mention if used.

[Graybeard]

Before we stone you, and we do it a lot around here .... I think you are mixing up Dark Matter with Dark Energy ? These are 2 different things ...

Before we go any further how do you see Dark matter and Dark Energy ??

cool bananas ... greg

[Triodit]

No, both are ways to describe a mathmatical qwirk. this covers all thing dark. Vacume energy, dark matter & dark energy. We call them dark because our only proof is wonky math.

I'm not saying there wrong on prisical, but an extrodinary theroy requires extrodenary prooof.

If I err in that statement then fine, just boy cot me. but plaese I'm begging you, tell my how you can prove why I can't be right about light. Don't post to tell me I'm wronge & don't post to tell me your righ. that *** an't helpful to anyone.

I really do want to know.

P.S. agian yes you found a way to say your right with numbers, but for god sake that's not extrodinary proof! You can make math for anything, but the math only has meaning if what it's based on is true.

[neutralino]

No, both are ways to describe a mathmatical qwirk. this covers all thing dark. Vacume energy, dark matter & dark energy. We call them dark because our only proof is wonky math.

This is quite an insult really. What do you think the "proof" (although we call it "observational evidence") for dark matter is? What is this "wonky math" of which you speak? I always thought that them major piece of evidence for dark matter was obtained by observing the orbital velocities of members of distant galaxies.

I also find it strange that you seem to think vacuum energy is "proved" by "wonky math." Have you ever studied the Casimir effect?

If I err in that statement then fine, just boy cot me. but plaese I'm begging you, tell my how you can prove why I can't be right about light.

Well, that's quite difficult to do, since you have only said one sentence about it. Do you have any mathematics to back you up? How does your theory for "dark matter" match the observational evidence?

[Graybeard]

Todays topic is "Dark Matter"

My last gripe was on the super string. I offered the theroy that instead of being magic, the photon was the diamanetic of the gavititional world. a very small partical that repels. in affect an anti gaviton.

I offer the same thing to explain the "Magic" of dark matter. Instead of some thing that is masive but unditactable. it's the pressure of the light pushing things away from the brightest area.

Dear Triodit ..... You say that the Magic of Dark Matter is the pressure of Light pushing things away from the brightest area .....

I think you are describing Dark Energy .... Dark Energy is possibly one of the explanations for the expansion of the Universe .... Is this what you are referring to ???

Dark Matter (not related to Dark Energy that I know of) is one of the explanations responsible for 'binding' (not pushing away) the Galaxies together ... because the Total Gravity of a Galaxy is not sufficient given the speed of its revolution....

They are not the same thing .... which one do you want to talk about ???

No, both are ways to describe a mathmatical qwirk. this covers all thing dark. Vacume energy, dark matter & dark energy. We call them dark because our only proof is wonky math.

If I err in that statement then fine, just boy cot me. but please I'm begging you, tell my how you can prove why I can't be right about light. Don't post to tell me I'm wronge & don't post to tell me your right.
I really do want to know.

I don't know if you err or not because I don't know what your talking about ... They do not cover ALL THINGS DARK !!


cool bananas ... greg

[Graybeard]

Click the arrow

What I don't understand Neutralino is how his/her grammar has changed so much since they're previous posts ?????

cool bananas ... greg

[neutralino]

What I don't understand Neutralino is how his/her grammar has changed so much since they're previous posts ?????

cool bananas ... greg

That's a very good point. We'll have to wait and see if we get answers!

[RascalPuff]

Dear Triodit:

Give a Google to 'Dark matter', 'Dark energy', and the 'Cosmological constant'.

(Include Dark matter and dark energy in the same Google, to access the list page I recommend you navigate)

You also might check out 'Georges Louis LeSage'.

Does that help?

Best regards,
- RP

[Triodit]

As ever, no one has even tryed to answer my question, I bow to your unquestioned right ness. Even though you can't tell me why I'm wronge. Sure shot down my more vauge supistion. But for gods sake avoid telling me of something that out right proves that lights not just repelling mater. wouldn't want to stay on topic for one post would we!!!

I must be some kind of 3 year old with no clue. I'm out. peace... I hate you guys.

Moderator Note: Foul language is not tolerated here. ~neutralino

[neutralino]

I think many people have tried to answer your question. Graybeard has asked you to clarify whether you mean dark matter or dark energy, which you have not answered. Furthermore, you have not put forward any theory, you have written a few speculative lines. You need to clarify and give your idea in detail before anyone can say whether it is correct or not.