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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #362479 > unrolled thread

Dark Matter:

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Dark Matter: The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-31 10:04 -0700
    Re: Dark Matter: kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-31 13:20 -0400
    Re: Dark Matter: je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-31 15:41 -0700
      Re: Dark Matter: kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-31 20:32 -0400
        Re: Dark Matter: Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-31 18:08 -0700
          Re: Dark Matter: kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-31 21:26 -0400
            Re: Dark Matter: Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-31 20:10 -0700
    Re: Dark Matter: Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 19:07 -0500
      Re: Dark Matter: kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-31 20:57 -0400
    Re: Dark Matter: The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-01 11:16 -0700

#362479 — Dark Matter:

Dark matter—the unseen 80 percent of the universe’s mass—doesn’t emit, absorb or reflect light. 
http://www.wired.com/2015/08/dark-matter-may-complex-physicists-thought/



The problems physicist are having with seeing dark matter can be fixed very simply..

they are simply not viewing it correctly.


Most likely they are using cameras with the wrong settings.


But dark matter contain red, blue and green.


The red is where the dark matter is coming from. It's black.

Change the settings and the Black/darkmatter will turn into visible matter.


Of course, that will not end the mystery...yous are just going to
wonder then what is the visible matter.


I'll wait till you get there, then I'll explain what you need to do.





The Starmaker

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#362482

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 10:04:20 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Dark matter—the unseen 80 percent of the universe’s mass—doesn’t emit, absorb or reflect light. 
>http://www.wired.com/2015/08/dark-matter-may-complex-physicists-thought/
>
>
>
>The problems physicist are having with seeing dark matter can be fixed very simply..
>
>they are simply not viewing it correctly.
>
>
>Most likely they are using cameras with the wrong settings.

        Nah, they just forgot to take the lens cap off.






>But dark matter contain red, blue and green.
>
>
>The red is where the dark matter is coming from. It's black.
>
>Change the settings and the Black/darkmatter will turn into visible matter.
>
>
>Of course, that will not end the mystery...yous are just going to
>wonder then what is the visible matter.
>
>
>I'll wait till you get there, then I'll explain what you need to do.
>
>
>
>
>
>The Starmaker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#362539

In article <55E48914.436A@ix.netcom.com>,
 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Most likely they are using cameras with the wrong settings.

They are using cameras that see from radio waves to x-rays.

-- 
Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments
of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from
coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true
of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#362554

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 15:41:24 -0700, je suis charly
<charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote:

>In article <55E48914.436A@ix.netcom.com>,
> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Most likely they are using cameras with the wrong settings.
>
>They are using cameras that see from radio waves to x-rays.

        Come on, quit joking, the only observation 
that causes the speculation that there might be
or should be dark matter is the velocity shift of
spectral lines.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#362562

On Monday, August 31, 2015 at 6:32:31 PM UTC-6, kefischer wrote:
>
>         Come on, quit joking, the only observation 
> that causes the speculation that there might be
> or should be dark matter is the velocity shift of
> spectral lines.

Which is a very important observation that implies new physics.

> > The majority of the mass in the universe remains unknown. Despite 
> > knowing very little about dark matter, its overall abundance is 
> > precisely measured. In other words: Physicists know it is out there, 
> > but they have not yet detected it. 
>
>        Can somebody describe how they "measured it"?

By the anomalous velocity method, of course.  But you knew this and
posed the question so you can launch into another stupid diatribe
about your plenteously refuted DuMb.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#362566

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 18:08:33 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
<hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Monday, August 31, 2015 at 6:32:31 PM UTC-6, kefischer wrote:
>>
>>         Come on, quit joking, the only observation 
>> that causes the speculation that there might be
>> or should be dark matter is the velocity shift of
>> spectral lines.
>
>Which is a very important observation that implies new physics.
>
>> > The majority of the mass in the universe remains unknown. Despite 
>> > knowing very little about dark matter, its overall abundance is 
>> > precisely measured. In other words: Physicists know it is out there, 
>> > but they have not yet detected it. 
>>
>>        Can somebody describe how they "measured it"?
>
>By the anomalous velocity method, of course.  But you knew this and
>posed the question so you can launch into another stupid diatribe
>about your plenteously refuted DuMb.

             The message I responded to states that the
abundance is measured.     Spectral lines measure
nothing, the entire question of dark matter is pure
speculation.

             The velocity shift needs explained, but the
explanation does not have to be more matter. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#362585

On Monday, August 31, 2015 at 7:26:25 PM UTC-6, kefischer wrote:
>
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 18:08:33 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
> <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, August 31, 2015 at 6:32:31 PM UTC-6, kefischer wrote:
> > >
> > >         Come on, quit joking, the only observation 
> > > that causes the speculation that there might be
> > > or should be dark matter is the velocity shift of
> > > spectral lines.
> >
> > Which is a very important observation that implies new physics.
> >
> > > > The majority of the mass in the universe remains unknown. Despite 
> > > > knowing very little about dark matter, its overall abundance is 
> > > > precisely measured. In other words: Physicists know it is out there, 
> > > > but they have not yet detected it. 
> > >
> > >        Can somebody describe how they "measured it"?
> >
> > By the anomalous velocity method, of course.  But you knew this and
> > posed the question so you can launch into another stupid diatribe
> > about your plenteously refuted DuMb.
> 
> The message I responded to states that the abundance is measured.
>     Spectral lines measure nothing,

Always wrong Fischer prattles nonsense again.  SHIFT in spectral lines
measure velocity.  The physics you falsely denigrate says the velocity
is too big for orbital motion given the observable mass in the vicinity.

> the entire question of dark matter is pure speculation.

No, it's not "pure speculation."  The most logical explanation according
to known physics is that there is much more matter that hasn't been
detected by direct observation.  The alternative is that there is new
physics.

> The velocity shift needs explained,

Learn a little about the Doppler effect before yammering like a fool.

> but the explanation does not have to be more matter.

For once you are correct, but it will probably turn out to be some form
of dark matter, which will be new physics, or it might be some subtle
modification of the equations of mechanics or gravity, which will also
be new physics.

One thing it WON'T be is "expanding matter" because that is devastatingly
refuted by all kinds of experimental evidence.  Only old demented
yammerheads are dumb enough to believe in DuMb and only old, demented,
arrogant yammerheads would puke all over the board trying to convince
himself and others that it makes any kind of sense whatever.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#362552

On 8/31/15 12:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Dark matter—the unseen 80 percent of the universe’s mass—doesn’t emit, absorb or reflect light.
> http://www.wired.com/2015/08/dark-matter-may-complex-physicists-thought/
>



   New theory—If we want to detect dark matter we might need a different
   approach
 > http://phys.org/news/2015-08-theoryif-dark-approach.html


 > Physicists suggest a new way to look for dark matter: They believe
 > that dark matter particles annihilate into so-called dark radiation
 > when they collide. If true, then we should be able to detect the
 > signals from this radiation.

 > The majority of the mass in the universe remains unknown. Despite
 > knowing very little about dark matter, its overall abundance is
 > precisely measured. In other words: Physicists know it is out there,
 > but they have not yet detected it.

 > It is definitely worth looking for, argues Ian Shoemaker, former
 > postdoctoral researcher at Centre for Cosmology and Particle Physics
 > Phenomenology (CP3), Department of Physics, Chemistry and Pharmacy,
 > University of Southern Denmark, now at Penn State, USA.

 > "There is no way of predicting what we can do with dark matter, if we
 > detect it. But it might revolutionize our world. When scientists
 > discovered quantum mechanics, it was considered a curiosity. Today,
 > quantum mechanics plays an important role in computers," he says.

 > Ever since dark matter was first theorized, there have been many
 > attempts to look for it, and now Ian Shoemaker and fellow scientists,
 > Associate Professor Mads Toudal Frandsen, CP3, and John F. Cherry,
 > postdoctoral researcher from Los Alamos National Laboratory, USA,
 > suggest a new approach. They present their work in the journal
 > Physical Review Letters.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#362559

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:07:17 -0500, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 8/31/15 12:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Dark matter—the unseen 80 percent of the universe’s mass—doesn’t emit, absorb or reflect light.
>> http://www.wired.com/2015/08/dark-matter-may-complex-physicists-thought/
>>
>
>
>
>   New theory—If we want to detect dark matter we might need a different
>   approach
> > http://phys.org/news/2015-08-theoryif-dark-approach.html
>
>
> > Physicists suggest a new way to look for dark matter: They believe
> > that dark matter particles annihilate into so-called dark radiation
> > when they collide. If true, then we should be able to detect the
> > signals from this radiation.
>
> > The majority of the mass in the universe remains unknown. Despite
> > knowing very little about dark matter, its overall abundance is
> > precisely measured. In other words: Physicists know it is out there,
> > but they have not yet detected it.

          Can somebody describe how they "measured it"?





> > It is definitely worth looking for, argues Ian Shoemaker, former
> > postdoctoral researcher at Centre for Cosmology and Particle Physics
> > Phenomenology (CP3), Department of Physics, Chemistry and Pharmacy,
> > University of Southern Denmark, now at Penn State, USA.
>
> > "There is no way of predicting what we can do with dark matter, if we
> > detect it. But it might revolutionize our world. When scientists
> > discovered quantum mechanics, it was considered a curiosity. Today,
> > quantum mechanics plays an important role in computers," he says.
>
> > Ever since dark matter was first theorized, there have been many
> > attempts to look for it, and now Ian Shoemaker and fellow scientists,
> > Associate Professor Mads Toudal Frandsen, CP3, and John F. Cherry,
> > postdoctoral researcher from Los Alamos National Laboratory, USA,
> > suggest a new approach. They present their work in the journal
> > Physical Review Letters.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#362689

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Dark matter—the unseen 80 percent of the universe’s mass—doesn’t emit, absorb or reflect light.
> http://www.wired.com/2015/08/dark-matter-may-complex-physicists-thought/
> 
> The problems physicist are having with seeing dark matter can be fixed very simply..
> 
> they are simply not viewing it correctly.
> 
> Most likely they are using cameras with the wrong settings.
> 
> But dark matter contain red, blue and green.
> 
> The red is where the dark matter is coming from. It's black.
> 
> Change the settings and the Black/darkmatter will turn into visible matter.
> 
> Of course, that will not end the mystery...yous are just going to
> wonder then what is the visible matter.
> 
> I'll wait till you get there, then I'll explain what you need to do.
> 
> The Starmaker



i know yous cannot wait a thousands years waiting for your gurus (the scientific community) to
see dark matter made visible...so i'll show you what it looks like now:



https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=871&q=tv+static&oq=tv+static&gs_l=img.12..0l10.4765.8398.0.10476.9.8.0.1.1.0.120.692.7j1.8.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..0.9.695.AkTROLVRgL0




http://tinyurl.com/p8naz6n




any questions?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web