Dark matter no-show hobbles elegant particle theory

[PersianPaladin]

What I find truly fascinating about Dark Matter is those that believe in it will believe filaments of this hypothetical substance connects galaxies, detecting it through x-rays, but then can not fathom the next logical step, what creates the x-rays? http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 11224.html

Gravity does not emit x-rays, they have discovered the plasma emissions, yet seem unable to comprehend the electrical currents that must be moving in the plasma for it to be emitting x-rays. They see the plasma filaments, yet steadfastly refuse to connect the dots. Instead it all remains a mystery that must be further researched for the cost of a few billion more wasted tax dollars.

Bingo!

[mpc755]

Conveniently, the aether is *magical* ...

Yes.

I think this is the danger when unresolved issues and hypothetical entities start becoming reified.

Bottomline: We don't know if an "aether" even exists or that we need one for EM waves to propagate. Until we measure the supposed medium of propagation, then our speculation about its properties risks turning into real objects with the assumed reality of "black holes" and "dark matter".

All of the following is evidence of aether.

'NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/de ... yager.html

"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar space is compacting it."

It is the aether which is displaced by the matter the solar system consists of which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system.

'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/100 ... 1475v1.pdf

"Our data strongly support the idea that the gravitational potential in clusters is mainly due to a non-baryonic fluid, and any exotic field in gravitational theory must resemble that of CDM fields very closely."

The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the aether. The analogy is a submarine moving through the water. You are under water. Two miles away from you are many lights. Moving between you and the lights one mile away is a submarine. The submarine displaces the water. The state of displacement of the water causes the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water to be offset from the center of the submarine itself. The offset between the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water displaced by the submarine and the center of the submarine itself is going to remain the same as the submarine moves through the water. The submarine continually displaces different regions of the water. The state of the water connected to and neighboring the submarine remains the same as the submarine moves through the water even though it is not the same water the submarine continually displaces. This is what is occurring physically in nature as the galaxy clusters move through the aether.

'Surprise! IBEX Finds No Bow ‘Shock’ Outside our Solar System'
http://www.universetoday.com/95094/surp ... ar-system/

'“While bow shocks certainly exist ahead of many other stars, we’re finding that our Sun’s interaction doesn’t reach the critical threshold to form a shock,” said Dr. David McComas, principal investigator of the IBEX mission, “so a wave is a more accurate depiction of what’s happening ahead of our heliosphere — much like the wave made by the bow of a boat as it glides through the water.”'

The wave ahead of our heliosphere is an aether displacement wave. This is evidence of a moving 'particle', the solar system, having an associated aether wave.

'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubbl ... ature.html

"Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark mater, which is somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the water."

The 'pond' consists of aether. The moving 'particles' are the galaxy clusters. The ripple is an aether displacement wave. The ripple is a gravitational wave. This is also evidence of a moving 'particle', the galaxy clusters, having an associated aether wave.

'Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in NASA Hubble Image '
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/ma ... _Core.html

"This technique revealed the dark matter in Abell 520 had collected into a "dark core," containing far fewer galaxies than would be expected if the dark matter and galaxies were anchored together. Most of the galaxies apparently have sailed far away from the collision. "This result is a puzzle," said astronomer James Jee of the University of California in Davis, lead author of paper about the results available online in The Astrophysical Journal. "Dark matter is not behaving as predicted, and it's not obviously clear what is going on. It is difficult to explain this Hubble observation with the current theories of galaxy formation and dark matter.""

The dark matter core does not defy explanation. The dark matter core is not a puzzle. The dark matter core is not difficult to explain. It is obviously clear what is going on.

Dark matter and galaxies are not anchored together. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

'Giant black hole kicked out of home galaxy'
http://www.astronomy.com/en/News-Observ ... alaxy.aspx

"But these new data support the idea that gravitational waves — ripples in the fabric of space first predicted by Albert Einstein but never detected directly — can exert an extremely powerful force."

The fabric of space is the aether.

Gravitational waves are ripples in the aether.

What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment; the aether.

Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's pilot-wave.

They are both aether displacement waves.

With regard to gravity - we have strong signs that gravity is inter-related with electromagnetism. We see this with the EM field variation on both the Earth and the Moon - as a compelling example. Of course, we are yet to develop the instruments sensitive enough to assume the quantization of charge that represents gravity interactions

Displaced aether pushing back toward matter is gravity.

Maxwell's displacement current is a physical displacement of the aether.

[Mr_Majestic]

As opposed to creating a new thread, I thought it would be better to share the news here that the scientists hunting for the so called "dark matter" have apparently found some in the vicinity of our Sun. (Not directly of course, that would be silly. Good old fashioned simulations have done the work for them. )

A few important points to bring up from the article (ellipses added):

Their results are inconsistent with the theory that the Milky Way Galaxy is surrounded by a massive "halo" of dark matter...

What isn't inconsistent with their theory these days?

The researchers used a state-of-the-art simulation of the Milky Way to test their mass-measuring method before applying it to real data. This threw up a number of surprises: they noticed that standard techniques used over the past twenty years were biased, always tending to underestimate the amount of dark matter.

More breathing room for them to shoehorn more guesses into their work, if I can put it doggishly.

In fact, if anything, the authors' favored dark matter density is a little high: they find more dark matter than expected at 90% confidence. There is a 10% chance that this is merely a statistical fluke...

At least they admit there's a possibility that they could be wrong.

...co-author Prof. George Lake explains: "If dark matter is a fundamental particle, billions of these particles will have passed through your body by the time your finish reading this article.

Isn't that what neutrinos are supposed to do? Sorry if I'm being pedantic here.

So... thoughts?

[mpc755]

Their results are inconsistent with the theory that the Milky Way Galaxy is surrounded by a massive "halo" of dark matter...

What isn't inconsistent with their theory these days?

The dark matter halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

Non-baryonic dark matter is not anchored to matter.

Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

[sjw40364]

The only Dark Matter or Dark Energy that exists is EM interactions. All these observations and simulations would do the same thing if you substituted the electrical and magnetic forces of all particles for gravity.

Of course thier computer simulations show it is there, they can tweak the calculations to get any result they want, yet the theory is then inconsistent with the halo DM theory which supposedly explains galactic rotations. So now that is left unexplained. The reason they need DM is that gravity alone can not do what they need done to match observations. All because they leave out the EM force. They include the EM force in atomic theory then leave it out in galactic theory. And then they actually wonder why they can not combine the two theories into one. You can't include the electrical force in one theory then leave it out in the other and expect to be able to make the two work together. All of you that believe in DM, DE, BH, Neutron stars, etc., please put the electro back into electromagnetic so we can get rid of all that fairy dust.

The aether is a dielectric and as such controls the transmission and storage of electrical and magnetic energy.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6468

[PersianPaladin]

I have absolutely no idea. You MIGHT be right. But I think you're rushing to assumptions of certainty. There are none.

It could well just be part of the heliosphere double-layer that we are yet to actually discern in terms of proper measurement. Remember what Alfven said about the complexity of these structures.

“.. when, by an immense number of vectors and tensors and integral equations, theoreticians have prescribed what a plasma must do, the plasma — like a naughty child — refuses to obey" Hannes Alfven-- Keynote Address "Double Layers Symposium" (1987) Double Layers in Astrophysics, Proceedings, NASA Huntsville, Alabama March 17-19, 1986.

They are effectively cellular in nature and strong voltages and repulsive or attractive forces exist at boundaries of plasma with different characteristics. The sun, like any plasma environment has its own Debye sheath or associated double-layers as do inter-stellar clouds and nebulae. This could well be the explanation. But to be honest, it's up in the air.

[sjw40364]

They are effectively cellular in nature and strong voltages and repulsive or attractive forces exist at boundaries of plasma with different characteristics. The sun, like any plasma environment has its own Debye sheath or associated double-layers as do inter-stellar clouds and nebulae. This could well be the explanation. But to be honest, it's up in the air.

So perhaps the Sun (which is a conductor moving in the galactic magnetic field) has polarized everything out to it's heliosphere within its double layer. Just as the galaxy has polarized everything out to it's heliosphere within it's double layer.

It is quite possible even in water to have different motions within it. I can't even see accepting standard explanations of charge. viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6448&start=15

There must be an explanation that allows transfer of force without the aberration of particle movement (even of c), because this aberration is not observed in the gravitational force, and is excluded in the math as well. Gravitational force is calculated as using the instantaneous position of an object, not it's aberrational position or observed light position. Polarization of a dielectric fits well.

But, until we correct the errors in standard theory and EU about charge, I don't expect any of us have it all right.

[Solar]

They are effectively cellular in nature and strong voltages and repulsive or attractive forces exist at boundaries of plasma with different characteristics. The sun, like any plasma environment has its own Debye sheath or associated double-layers as do inter-stellar clouds and nebulae. This could well be the explanation. But to be honest, it's up in the air.

So perhaps the Sun (which is a conductor moving in the galactic magnetic field) has polarized everything out to it's heliosphere within its double layer. Just as the galaxy has polarized everything out to it's heliosphere within it's double layer.

It is quite possible even in water to have different motions within it. I can't even see accepting standard explanations of charge. viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6448&start=15

There must be an explanation that allows transfer of force without the aberration of particle movement (even of c), because this aberration is not observed in the gravitational force, and is excluded in the math as well. Gravitational force is calculated as using the instantaneous position of an object, not it's aberrational position or observed light position. Polarization of a dielectric fits well.

But, until we correct the errors in standard theory and EU about charge, I don't expect any of us have it all right.

Well, you're both correct imho, but with SJW doubly so, though I generally have always had problems with the "polarization" concept. Anyways:

The most important thing there (especially with regard to the Aether) would be the "different motions within it". This, it seems, is one of the premier reasons that the energy multiplicities that result from the dynamics of the Aether are not understood. You’ve expressed it well; now give it some thought with regard to reconsidering your consideration that 'the Aether doesn’t need to move' even insofar as it relates to the “cellular” aspects of plasma-electrodynamics.

I first ran into the relationship that *I think* you’re speaking of through the work of Harold Aspden who posits that the “vacuum” (let’s not kid ourselves people; we all know what that more than alludes to) reacts by propagating waves in response to ‘transverse’ electric fields. This sets up a local “vacuum spin” (Aspden’s term) condition that becomes “phase-locked” to the local quantum spin states of, for example, “quanta”. In other words, the differentiated “spins” between the broader electric field of the surrounding environment are made to contrast so that one has “cellular” dynamics occurring in relation to the “quanta” now possessing (or emitting) its own electric field for its local region –which then resides within the environmental electric field as "different motions within it":

It is not sufficient to imagine that electric charge in the aether is displaced from a rest position in a background continuum of opposite charge polarity to which it is attracted by a restoring force. Indeed, one must consider such action to be superimposed on a system of charge that has an underlying jitter motion, a quantum theory theme associated with the German physicist Heisenberg (Zitter-bewegung, which has the dictionary meaning ‘Circular fluctuation movement, of spin’). When these two factors are combined, and the constraint added of there being a phase-lock which keeps that jitter motion in synchronism as between the charges, one finds that the physical theory involved has some very interesting consequences.

One of these consequences is that a spherical or cylindrical volume of aether, if spinning bodily about a central axis, will acquire a magnetic moment and set up an electric field inside that sphere or cylinder that is directed radially with respect to the spin axis. – Harold Aspden “The Physics of Perpetual Motion”

Likewise, the cellular ‘bubbles’ i.e. “molecular clouds” of self-differentiated (or self-organized) plasma would then possess their own electric fields within said ' cellular bubbles' in contrast to the electric field of the environment of the interstellar medium within which they reside. Our star, the Sun would then have its own electric field “phase-locked” to its local environment as it exist with the electric field of its own ‘bubble’ with said local electric field having been self-differentiated from the electric field of the surrounding interstellar medium – which is then self-differentiated from the electric field of the galaxy. Again owing to "different motions within it".

Science has grown so very accustomed to “fields” as simply a given that they are never explained. The Aether does ‘move’ and of its motions “vortices” are ubiquitous:

The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance."- Nikola Tesla

"...wheels within wheels..."

[mpc755]

Science has grown so very accustomed to “fields” as simply a given that they are never explained

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_ef ... uum_energy

"a "field" in physics may be envisioned as if space were filled with interconnected vibrating balls and springs, and the strength of the field can be visualized as the displacement of a ball from its rest position"

A field in physics is space filled with aether and the strength of the field is the displacement of the aether from its rest position.

[Solar]

Science has grown so very accustomed to “fields” as simply a given that they are never explained

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_ef ... uum_energy

"a "field" in physics may be envisioned as if space were filled with interconnected vibrating balls and springs, and the strength of the field can be visualized as the displacement of a ball from its rest position"

A field in physics is space filled with aether and the strength of the field is the displacement of the aether from its rest position.

You haven't understood the implications of Harold Aspden's approach which I quoted and which runs exactly counter to the description you've posted from Wiki:

It is not sufficient to imagine that electric charge in the aether is displaced from a rest position in a background continuum of opposite charge polarity to which it is attracted by a restoring force.- Harold Aspden

The energetic multiplicities of the Aether perceived of in terms of "fields" do not function in terms of charge "displaced" from its rest position in a background continuum of opposite charge seeking to be restored. This is completely the opposite of the reference you've posted and obviously an interpretation that Aspden refutes.

Instead, so called "fields" are a result of induced Aether spin ("vacuum spin") localized to the "matter" emitting said field which becomes phase-locked to the "matter" that emits its own (now local) electric "field" - that then still exist within the broader electric field of the Continuum.

Instead, the quanta are produced by their own spinning Aetheric phase-space that is then phase-locked to the electric field emitting "matter". In other words the quanta become 'cellular' ("quantized") by self-organizing self-differentiations of the Aether by way of phase-transitions. "Ball lightning" is produced when the discharge is powerful enough to induce a relatively small local region of "vacuum spin". It then radiates its own electric field, self-differentiated yet, still existing within the larger electric field of the storm.

One will then have the relation spoken of by Tesla:

The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance."- Nikola Tesla

[viscount aero]

What I find truly fascinating about Dark Matter is those that believe in it will believe filaments of this hypothetical substance connects galaxies, detecting it through x-rays, but then can not fathom the next logical step, what creates the x-rays? http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 11224.html

Gravity does not emit x-rays, they have discovered the plasma emissions, yet seem unable to comprehend the electrical currents that must be moving in the plasma for it to be emitting x-rays. They see the plasma filaments, yet steadfastly refuse to connect the dots. Instead it all remains a mystery that must be further researched for the cost of a few billion more wasted tax dollars.

They cannot make the next step to even remotely entertain the filaments as being anything else because that is too threatening. It would open up the world to publicly question the so-called "standard model." Periodicals such as Scientific American would lose all credibility.

[mpc755]

Science has grown so very accustomed to “fields” as simply a given that they are never explained

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_ef ... uum_energy

"a "field" in physics may be envisioned as if space were filled with interconnected vibrating balls and springs, and the strength of the field can be visualized as the displacement of a ball from its rest position"

A field in physics is space filled with aether and the strength of the field is the displacement of the aether from its rest position.

You haven't understood the implications of Harold Aspden's approach which I quoted and which runs exactly counter to the description you've posted from Wiki:

It is not sufficient to imagine that electric charge in the aether is displaced from a rest position in a background continuum of opposite charge polarity to which it is attracted by a restoring force.- Harold Aspden

The energetic multiplicities of the Aether perceived of in terms of "fields" do not function in terms of charge "displaced" from its rest position in a background continuum of opposite charge seeking to be restored. This is completely the opposite of the reference you've posted and obviously an interpretation that Aspden refutes.

Instead, so called "fields" are a result of induced Aether spin ("vacuum spin") localized to the "matter" emitting said field which becomes phase-locked to the "matter" that emits its own (now local) electric "field" - that then still exist within the broader electric field of the Continuum.

Instead, the quanta are produced by their own spinning Aetheric phase-space that is then phase-locked to the electric field emitting "matter". In other words the quanta become 'cellular' ("quantized") by self-organizing self-differentiations of the Aether by way of phase-transitions. "Ball lightning" is produced when the discharge is powerful enough to induce a relatively small local region of "vacuum spin". It then radiates its own electric field, self-differentiated yet, still existing within the larger electric field of the storm.

One will then have the relation spoken of by Tesla:

The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance."- Nikola Tesla

'The Third Book of Opticks (1718) by Isaac Newton'
http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/v ... /NATP00051

"Qu. 21. Is not this Medium much rarer within the dense Bodies of the Sun, Stars, Planets and Comets, than in the empty celestial Spaces between them? And in passing from them to great distances, doth it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great Bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the Bodies; every Body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the Medium towards the rarer? ..."

Newton is referring to the state of displacement of the aether. The aether does not have a variable density. However, Newton was correct; displaced aether is the cause of gravity.

[Lloyd]

* And isn't the aether photons, which have mass and thus repulsion?

[sjw40364]

Don't get me started on photons viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6448&start=15

Why does theory state that it takes so much work to travel in a straight line, but no work whatsoever to travel in a circular orbit? Yet at the same time particles traveling in a circular orbit in magnetic fields generate electric current. Are not the same photons being emitted and absorbed whether the particle is traveling in a straight line or a circular orbit?

So these photons can not be the source of the electrical current generated by particles traveling through magnetic fields in circular orbits, else they would generate the same electrical currents for particles traveling in straight lines. Photons are by-products of energy generation, excess charge being emitted to maintain system balance.

And according to theory only by traveling in a circular orbit could a photon travel without requiring work, but such circular orbits create electrical currents in magnetic fields. But electrical generation from nothing is again against theory.

I have as yet seen no theory on charge that meets observations AND doesn't conflict with itself on any level.

Photons are waste products from the energy generation process, not the cause of it. Whatever the magnetic field is causing to polarize, that causes matter to spiral, is what aether is. It is the movement of charges in matter (conductors) That cause magnetic moments in said particles. This magnetic force reacts with the aether

by Solar » Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:29 am
The energetic multiplicities of the Aether perceived of in terms of "fields" do not function in terms of charge "displaced" from its rest position in a background continuum of opposite charge seeking to be restored.

Instead, so called "fields" are a result of induced Aether spin ("vacuum spin") localized to the "matter" emitting said field which becomes phase-locked to the "matter" that emits its own (now local) electric "field" - that then still exist within the broader electric field of the Continuum.

it polarizes it, causing it to align around these moving charges that are expending energy as they travel in orbits, but said movement in this orbit reacting with the polarized aether causes electrical current to build up so it appears as if it took no work to complete a closed loop. I can not accept no work is being done in a closed loop, while work is being done in every other instance. But in a closed loop electrical currents are generated which provides the charge with energy as it travels through the polarized aether, as it expends energy it gains it.

Take that last statement as you may.

[Solar]

'The Third Book of Opticks (1718) by Isaac Newton'
http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/v ... /NATP00051

"Qu. 21. Is not this Medium much rarer within the dense Bodies of the Sun, Stars, Planets and Comets, than in the empty celestial Spaces between them? And in passing from them to great distances, doth it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great Bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the Bodies; every Body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the Medium towards the rarer? ..."

Newton is referring to the state of displacement of the aether. The aether does not have a variable density. However, Newton was correct; displaced aether is the cause of gravity.

Seems to me that this relation of Newt's is precisely why there used to exist “gravity only” cosmologist running around talking about the mutual gravitational attraction of all matter eventually causing the universe to collapse back on itself. They referred to it as the “Big Crunch” into a gravitational “singularity”; accompanied by a “Big Freeze”. Whatever happened to that mantra I wonder?

Would not this be the result of something that would “grow denser and denser perpetually” while simultaneously inducing “the gravity of those great Bodies towards one another”? One would necessarily fall into the lap of current astrophysical thinking trying to propose different concepts to keep this model up because some of its resultants simply haven't been observed.

Thus was born “expansion”, the other resultant of Newt’s utterances that you’ve cited, to counteract what was not observed to be occurring i.e. the ‘gravitational collapse’ of all matter towards some centroidal "singularity"; somewhere. Currently, the later "expansion" exceeds the supposed "collapse" with and we have ‘accelerated expansion’. Throw in a little “dark energy” and the process of hot hadronic ‘expansion’ (Big Bang) and freezing ‘contraction’ (Big crunch) to and fro of the proposed “singularity” can even become an unimaginably vast periodic oscillation for which the concept of 'Time' would then be rendered meaningless.

It seems that perhaps your theory is trying to reconcile these later day cosmological extrapolations of Newts classical light bearing Luminiferous Aether ideas with a reductionist approach of ‘Aether Displacements’ as being the underlying basis. I've likewise contrasted also with, for example The theoretical Higgs universal field of "mass" (here). I think these things are readily recognizable as variations on the Aether principle, in principle, and ripe for such analytical contrast.You've presented these ideas before (here).

The 'aether displacement' concept did remind me of a paper I've been meaning to get though; so thanks for that.