Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #672229

Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized.

Show all headers | View raw

Henry Wilson wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 12:36:30 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> Nah. Computers handle it all with automatic safeguards and the help of
> 
> >
> > Superimposing linacs and cyclotrons and observing the non-falsification
> > of real space-contraction and distinct space-contraction-linear and
> > space-contraction-rotational has that Dark Matter already falsified the
> > Newtonian/Einsteinian/Galilean.
> 
> Dark matter consists mainly of 'dead photons'...photons that smash into
> each other head on and come to a near standstill. They have minuscule mass
> but there is an awful lot of them. They end up gravitating towards or
> swirling around black holes.



This is not a hypothesis — it is a physics-illiterate fever dream that
collapses under the first five seconds of special relativity and quantum
electrodynamics.

    Photons cannot “come to a near standstill.”
    Photons are massless. By definition they travel at c in vacuum.
There is no inertial frame in which a free photon is at rest. Claiming
two photons smash head-on and stop is the equivalent of asserting that
two light rays can cancel their four-momenta into a stationary object
with residual mass. Energy-momentum conservation forbids it. Two photons
of equal energy colliding head-on can (rarely) produce an
electron-positron pair if the center-of-mass energy exceeds 1.022 MeV;
they do not produce a slow, massive “dead photon.”
    Photon-photon scattering does not create massive particles that hang
around.
    The cross-section for elastic ?? ? ?? is tiny (~10?³° cm² at optical
energies and still minuscule at higher energies). When it occurs, the
outgoing photons still move at c. There is no mechanism in QED that
converts two real photons into a long-lived, near-stationary particle
with “minuscule mass.” That particle would have to be something else
entirely (a massive boson, a bound state, etc.), none of which is a
photon.
    “Minuscule mass but an awful lot of them” is not dark matter.
    Any particle that couples to the electromagnetic field (even weakly)
is ruled out by the observed transparency of the universe, CMB
constraints, and the absence of electromagnetic interactions in galactic
dynamics. Dark matter is collisionless on astrophysical scales; your
“dead photons” would still be photons or would have to lose their
electromagnetic coupling by magic. The cosmic photon density (CMB +
starlight) is already measured; inventing an extra reservoir of stopped
photons requires inventing new physics that is already excluded by
precision cosmology.
    They do not “gravitate towards or swirl around black holes” as the
dominant dark-matter reservoir.
    Black-hole capture of any weakly interacting particle is a tiny
effect. The observed dark-matter density profiles are smooth, extended
halos, not concentrated “swirls” around the sparse population of black
holes. Galactic rotation curves, cluster lensing, and bullet-cluster
separation all require a diffuse, non-baryonic component that does not
preferentially pile up at black-hole locations.
    The idea is incompatible with structure formation.
    Cold dark matter must be non-relativistic early enough to seed the
observed power spectrum. Massless or ultra-relativistic photons
free-stream and erase structure. Turning them into “near-standstill”
objects after the fact does not magically give them the correct
free-streaming length or the correct equation of state at recombination
and earlier.


You are silently assuming that photons can acquire rest mass through
pairwise collisions while remaining photons. You are assuming that
energy and momentum can simply vanish or convert into gravitational mass
without producing observable electromagnetic signatures or
particle-physics partners. You are assuming that the entire measured
photon budget of the universe is somehow irrelevant and that an
invisible extra population can be postulated without violating entropy,
number density, or optical-depth constraints. You are treating black
holes as cosmic vacuum cleaners that can concentrate this imaginary
population into the precise density profiles we observe — pure magical
thinking.


No professional cosmologist or particle physicist will touch this
because it violates Lorentz invariance, gauge invariance, and every
precision measurement of the photon. Journals will desk-reject it.
Conference audiences will laugh. Any attempt to publish will be met with
the same reaction that meets every other “I fixed dark matter with
light” crank paper: immediate, well-deserved ridicule. There is zero
career incentive to defend it and infinite incentive to demolish it.


The entire observable-universe photon number density is ~410 cm?³ for
the CMB alone. Even if every one of them somehow stopped (they can’t),
their energy density is already accounted for and is orders of magnitude
too small and too hot to act as cold dark matter. Scaling this idea to
galactic masses requires inventing an unobserved photon population whose
total energy density exceeds the critical density while remaining
electromagnetically invisible — a contradiction. Relativistic beaming,
pair production thresholds, and the mean free path of high-energy
photons already constrain any such process to irrelevance on
cosmological scales.


The entire premise that photons can become massive, slow, and
electromagnetically inert must be discarded. The collision mechanism
must be thrown out. The black-hole concentration claim must be
abandoned. What remains is the empty statement “maybe some new particle
exists,” which is not your idea.

The notion that dark matter is related to ordinary photons in any direct
kinematic way is dead on arrival.


This is not a bold alternative; it is a public demonstration that the
author has never internalized the fact that light always travels at c.


-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. HGW <henry@home.com> - 2026-08-17 06:55 +0000
  Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 07:08 +0000
    Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 09:28 +0200
      Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 07:36 +0000
        Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 09:41 +0200
          Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 07:42 +0000
            Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 09:50 +0200
              Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 07:52 +0000
                Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 10:03 +0200
                Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 08:04 +0000
                Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 10:07 +0200
                Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 08:11 +0000
                Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 10:17 +0200
                Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 08:18 +0000
                Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 10:26 +0200
                Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 08:30 +0000
                Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 10:33 +0200
    Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-17 10:54 +0200
    Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. HGW <henry@home.com> - 2026-08-17 09:28 +0000
      Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-17 12:45 +0200
        Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 13:03 +0200
        Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 13:04 +0200
        Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-18 12:00 +0000
          Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-18 17:55 +0200
            Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-18 18:24 +0000
              Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-18 12:36 -0700
                Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-18 23:58 +0000
                Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-08-18 22:39 -0700
              Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-18 23:15 +0200
                Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-18 23:45 +0000
      Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 15:04 +0000
        Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-17 23:15 +0000
          Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 23:22 +0000
            Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-18 01:10 +0000
            Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-18 18:49 +0000
              Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-08-18 22:51 -0700
        Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-18 12:11 +0000
  Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-17 10:54 +0200
    Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. HGW <henry@home.com> - 2026-08-17 09:45 +0000
      Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-17 12:45 +0200
  Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-08-18 02:47 +0200
    Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-18 01:32 +0000
  Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-18 11:56 +0200
    Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 12:14 +0200
  Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-08-18 12:45 +0200

csiph-web