The two physicists claim that the new mechanism they propose may be connected with the apparent imbalance between matter and antimatter in the cosmos and could leave an imprint which would be detected in future experiments on gravitational waves.
Michael Mozina wrote:Dark matter theory is the ultimate example of confirmation bias. No number of null results from the lab make any significant difference to the 'dogma', and even the gross baryonic mass estimations problems don't matter either. It's full steam ahead, and nothing can stop the dark matter gravy train.
Last year CERN announced the finding of a new elementary particle, the Higgs particle. But maybe it wasn't the Higgs particle, maybe it just looks like it. And maybe it is not alone.
Instead of estimating the total photon energy in the ways they have, they should have estimated
it this way:
e = 1.602 x 10-19 C
1C = 2 x 10-7 kg/s (see definition of Ampere to find this number in the mainstream)
e = 3.204 x 10-26 kg/s
Those first two equations I took straight out of the old books. You can find the equations at Wikipedia.
They aren't any inventions of mine. I simply combined them to get the third equation. The third
equation doesn't look too revolutionary, until you remember that it means that if the electron has a
charge of e, it is emitting about 35,000 times its own mass every second, as charge. It also means the
proton is emitting about 19 times its own mass every second. If we give this charge to real photons
instead of to virtual photons, we have a simple way to estimate the total mass/energy of the photon
field. It is 19 times the atomic field, or 95% of the total mass/energy of the universe.
An ANALYSIS of DARK MATTER
No excess events were found above the expected background.
comingfrom wrote:Miles Mathis shows us simply.Instead of estimating the total photon energy in the ways they have, they should have estimated
it this way:
e = 1.602 x 10-19 C
1C = 2 x 10-7 kg/s (see definition of Ampere to find this number in the mainstream)
e = 3.204 x 10-26 kg/s
Those first two equations I took straight out of the old books. You can find the equations at Wikipedia.
They aren't any inventions of mine.
The findings have left researchers struggling for answers. “We do not understand how the Universe works at a deeper and more profound level than most of us care to admit,” says Stacy McGaugh, an astrophysicist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.
“I hope people will become even more open-minded,” says McGaugh, who has studied modified versions of gravity that negate the need for dark matter. However, Hooper stresses that the fading support for WIMPs does not weaken the case for dark matter, which he thinks will eventually be found. “I’m not worried about the never possibility, but it could be very, very difficult,” he says.
querious wrote:LOL, I'd love to see where the Mathis got C=kg/sec. Another mangling of terms to fit his agenda. Charge is actually
kg.5 * m * s-.5
The SI unit of charge, the coulomb, "is the quantity of electricity carried in 1 second by a current of 1 ampere".
The ampere is that constant current which, if maintained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible circular cross-section, and placed one metre apart in vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force equal to 2×10−7 newtons per metre of length.
One newton is the force needed to accelerate one kilogram of mass at the rate of one metre per second squared in direction of the applied force.
comingfrom wrote:querious wrote:LOL, I'd love to see where the Mathis got C=kg/sec. Another mangling of terms to fit his agenda. Charge is actually
kg.5 * m * s-.5The SI unit of charge, the coulomb, "is the quantity of electricity carried in 1 second by a current of 1 ampere".The ampere is that constant current which, if maintained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible circular cross-section, and placed one metre apart in vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force equal to 2×10−7 newtons per metre of length.One newton is the force needed to accelerate one kilogram of mass at the rate of one metre per second squared in direction of the applied force.
Quotes taken from Wikipedia.
Thank you, Querious.querious wrote:Thank you, Querious.comingfrom wrote:querious wrote:LOL, I'd love to see where the Mathis got C=kg/sec. Another mangling of terms to fit his agenda. Charge is actually
kg.5 * m * s-.5The SI unit of charge, the coulomb, "is the quantity of electricity carried in 1 second by a current of 1 ampere".The ampere is that constant current which, if maintained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible circular cross-section, and placed one metre apart in vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force equal to 2×10−7 newtons per metre of length.One newton is the force needed to accelerate one kilogram of mass at the rate of one metre per second squared in direction of the applied force.
Quotes taken from Wikipedia.
You're missing the full Ampere defining equation, it's spelled out here....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability#The_ampere_defines_vacuum_permeability
Looking at the above equation, the question becomes, how do we assign the magnetic constant and Coulomb their proper mechanical units? By studying the relationships listed in this section....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_of_free_space#Relation_to_other_constants
. . hopefully you'll see that vacuum permittivity and permeability both have dimension 1/c.
A little dimensional analysis reveals Coulomb = kg.5 * m * s -.5
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest