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

Groups > sci.physics > #680713 > unrolled thread

Dark Energy

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Dark Energy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 19:12 -0700
    Re: Dark Energy pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-10 19:18 -0700
      Re: Dark Energy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 19:27 -0700
        Re: Dark Energy moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-11 04:07 +0000
          Re: Dark Energy "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-11 00:16 -0700
            Re: Dark Energy Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 22:04 -0500
              Re: Dark Energy mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-04-11 20:31 -0700
            Re: Dark Energy moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-12 03:56 +0000
              Re: Dark Energy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 09:12 -0700
                Re: Dark Energy moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-12 16:54 +0000
                  Re: Dark Energy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 12:55 -0700
                    Re: Dark Energy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 23:16 +0000
                      Re: Dark Energy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 23:21 +0000
                    Re: Dark Energy "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-04-14 12:24 -0700
                      Re: Dark Energy "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-04-14 12:41 -0700
                Re: Dark Energy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 23:16 +0000
                  Re: Dark Energy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 16:22 -0700
                    Re: Dark Energy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 00:42 +0000
                      Re: Dark Energy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 18:18 -0700
                        Re: Dark Energy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 01:59 +0000
                          Re: Dark Energy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 19:17 -0700
                            Re: Dark Energy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 03:02 +0000
                              Re: Dark Energy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 08:05 -0700
                                Re: Dark Energy moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-13 15:32 +0000
                                  Re: Dark Energy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 08:44 -0700
                                    Re: Dark Energy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-14 02:06 +0000
                                      Re: Dark Energy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 19:19 -0700
                                        Re: Dark Energy moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-14 02:40 +0000
                                          Re: Dark Energy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 19:52 -0700
                                    Re: Dark Energy moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-14 02:37 +0000
                                      Re: Dark Energy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 19:49 -0700
                                        Re: Dark Energy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-14 12:23 +0000
                                          Re: Dark Energy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-14 08:00 -0700
                                Re: Dark Energy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 15:49 +0000
                        Re: Dark Energy moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-13 06:25 +0000
                    Re: Dark Energy moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-13 06:14 +0000
              Re: Dark Energy "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-12 14:18 -0700
      Re: Dark Energy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 19:29 -0700
        Re: Dark Energy pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-10 20:15 -0700
          Re: Dark Energy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 20:36 -0700
        Re: Dark Energy moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-11 04:14 +0000
          Re: Dark Energy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 21:30 -0700
            Re: Dark Energy moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-11 04:46 +0000
              Re: Dark Energy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 21:50 -0700
    Re: Dark Energy Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-15 19:21 +0100
      Re: Dark Energy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-15 19:26 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#680713 — Dark Energy

In a Fractal Universe, there are "layers" of Matter/energy that reoccur at certain sizes. This undoubtedly is tied to the billion-year constraint on galaxies recently demonstrated, and points to Space as having a single frequency.
The layers below ours are not visible. We notice the galaxies accelerating apart, and we say "expansion". But we could also say "dilution". The layers below ours could be increasing because of a flow of this smaller, unseen Matter coming into our part of the Universe. Matter/energy too small to see, therefore "dark". Dark energy.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#680714

On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 7:12:38 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> In a Fractal Universe, there are "layers" of Matter/energy that reoccur at certain sizes. This undoubtedly is tied to the billion-year constraint on galaxies recently demonstrated, and points to Space as having a single frequency.
> The layers below ours are not visible. We notice the galaxies accelerating apart, and we say "expansion". But we could also say "dilution". The layers below ours could be increasing because of a flow of this smaller, unseen Matter coming into our part of the Universe. Matter/energy too small to see, therefore "dark". Dark energy.

You are making this up, John, there is no indication of a fractal universe except in your very fertile imagination, where virtually anything is possible.

The Scientific Method does *not* include making things up as you go along, that's bad ju-ju...

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

#680715

Pnal
"You are making this up, John, there is no indication of a fractal"
Yes there is. Dark Matter.

Also, Russian Stacking Dolls.

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

#680719

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Pnal
>"You are making this up, John, there is no indication of a fractal"
>Yes there is. Dark Matter.

He said no indication of a fractal _universe_.

Your misinterpretation of "dark matter" is definitely not any indication
of a fractal universe.  It is an indication of a phenomenon called "word
salad", where you hear a science-y word or phrase (such as "dark matter")  
that you either don't understand or don't believe in, you change its
meaning to match your imaginary universe and then start using your term
with your new meaning. Like what you did with the term "black hole".
Astronomers have a very specific meaning for that term, and it is not
"nothing" spinning. (how stoopid is that!?)

Do that a few times and you have a bunch of science words all mixed
together. Word salad. May I have Russian dressing with that?

>Also, Russian Stacking Dolls.

Russian stacking dolls are not any indication of a fractal universe.
It may perhaps be an indication that Odd has been there, however.

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

#680733

On 4/10/2018 9:07 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Pnal
>> "You are making this up, John, there is no indication of a fractal"
>> Yes there is. Dark Matter.
> 
> He said no indication of a fractal _universe_.
> 
> Your misinterpretation of "dark matter" is definitely not any indication
> of a fractal universe.  It is an indication of a phenomenon called "word
> salad", where you hear a science-y word or phrase (such as "dark matter")
> that you either don't understand or don't believe in, you change its
> meaning to match your imaginary universe and then start using your term
> with your new meaning. Like what you did with the term "black hole".
> Astronomers have a very specific meaning for that term, and it is not
> "nothing" spinning. (how stoopid is that!?)
> 
> Do that a few times and you have a bunch of science words all mixed
> together. Word salad. May I have Russian dressing with that?
> 
>> Also, Russian Stacking Dolls.
> 
> Russian stacking dolls are not any indication of a fractal universe.
> It may perhaps be an indication that Odd has been there, however.
> 

Forget universe for a moment... Is a tree an example of a fractal 
construction?

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

#680824

On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 00:16:03 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" wrote:

> Forget universe for a moment... Is a tree an example of a fractal 
> construction?

In a manner of speaking.  Within certain limits small sections of a tree
branch in ways which resemble larger sections of a tree.

-- 
Goat

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

#680826

On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 8:03:58 PM UTC-7, Lofty Goat wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 00:16:03 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" wrote:
> 
> > Forget universe for a moment... Is a tree an example of a fractal 
> > construction?
> 
> In a manner of speaking.  Within certain limits small sections of a tree
> branch in ways which resemble larger sections of a tree.
> 
> -- 
> Goat

Is the Earth moving through dark energy?

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#680827

"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> writes:

>Forget universe for a moment... Is a tree an example of a fractal 
>construction?

Yes, lots of things are fractal-like. I was recently explaining to my
kid how a common fern is like a fractal. The main frond is made of side
"leaves" of a similar shape, each of which is made of little "leaflets" 
of a similar shape, each with a jagged edge somewhat like the leaflet.

But fractal layers of matter? No evidence of that.

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

#680839

MM
"
But fractal layers of matter? No evidence of that. 
"
No evidence of Matter different from ours?
What's Dark Matter?
What's Dark Energy?

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

#680844

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>MM
>"
>But fractal layers of matter? No evidence of that. 
>"
>No evidence of Matter different from ours?
>What's Dark Matter?
>What's Dark Energy?

Can't you read, John? I said 'no evidence of fractal layers of
matter'.  I did not say 'no evidence of dark matter/dark energy'
or even 'no evidence of matter different from ours'.

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

#680864

MM
"
Can't you read, John? I said 'no evidence of fractal layers of 
matter'.  I did not say 'no evidence of dark matter/dark energy' 
or even 'no evidence of matter different from ours'. "

So you recognize that there are other Matter forms that gravitate but don't engage with our emr.
But smaller fractals of our Matter, which would gravitate but be too small to engage with our emr, you reject as a possibility because.....why, exactly?

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

#680886

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> MM
> "
> Can't you read, John? I said 'no evidence of fractal layers of 
> matter'.  I did not say 'no evidence of dark matter/dark energy' 
> or even 'no evidence of matter different from ours'. "
> 
> So you recognize that there are other Matter forms that gravitate but
> don't engage with our emr.

At least the possibility of it. Neutrinos by the way do the same thing so
not so wild a speculation. 

> But smaller fractals of our Matter, which would gravitate but be too
> small to engage with our emr, you reject as a possibility because.....why, exactly?

Because there’s no evidence of it being fractal in any way. Nor any test
devised that would show that it is fractal. That would be important in
science. 

> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#680888

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
>> MM
>> "
>> Can't you read, John? I said 'no evidence of fractal layers of 
>> matter'.  I did not say 'no evidence of dark matter/dark energy' 
>> or even 'no evidence of matter different from ours'. "
>> 
>> So you recognize that there are other Matter forms that gravitate but
>> don't engage with our emr.
> 
> At least the possibility of it. Neutrinos by the way do the same thing so
> not so wild a speculation. 
> 
>> But smaller fractals of our Matter, which would gravitate but be too
>> small to engage with our emr, you reject as a possibility because.....why, exactly?
> 
> Because there’s no evidence of it being fractal in any way. Nor any test
> devised that would show that it is fractal. That would be important in
> science. 

Or perhaps what your saying is that whatever scientists call dark matter,
you’re just calling fractal matter, and there’s nothing more to it than a
renaming. But if there’s a distinction, then what’s the MEASURABLE
distinction between fractal matter and dark matter. Hmmmmm?

> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#681055

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 12:55:16 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> MM
> "
> Can't you read, John? I said 'no evidence of fractal layers of 
> matter'.  I did not say 'no evidence of dark matter/dark energy' 
> or even 'no evidence of matter different from ours'. "
> 
> So you recognize that there are other Matter forms that gravitate but don't engage with our emr.
> But smaller fractals of our Matter, which would gravitate but be too small to engage with our emr, you reject as a possibility because.....why, exactly?

Unseen matter going at 99.999999999 of c gives the answer to the missing force og gravity.   Bert

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

#681058

___"reber G=EMC^2"<herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote:
"Unseen matter going at 99.999999999 of c gives the 
answer to why...
"I am a first class low wit bigot.  Sad and so true. Bert"
"I park & bark in the dark. I'm a stupid shit and full of it." Bert." 
>
"Why am I posting this, it's making me cry as it always does".Bert
>
______  "Why am I not loved by all?". Bert.
>

>
>
>
hmmm...<snicker>...<chortle>...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFLMAO>
>
PS:
SwineBert Glazier's daily Sanctimony and his 
phony idiotic posts, are  very different from
<http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier-s-REAL-intent> [J]
who brags to be a Jewish Supremacist who knows
how everything works, which first and foremost
is Bert's habit to shit into peoples' mouths and to
see them being murdered so that Glazier can be a 
criminal graveyard vandal & piss onto their  graves. 
Read it in Jewpig Glazier's own words in link [J]

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

#680885

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> MM
> "
> But fractal layers of matter? No evidence of that. 
> "
> No evidence of Matter different from ours?

No. No evidence of FRACTAL layers of matter, which is what you said. 


> What's Dark Matter?
> What's Dark Energy?
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#680889

Odd
"No evidence of FRACTAL layers of matter, which is what you said. "
What evidence would you expect?

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

#680895

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> "No evidence of FRACTAL layers of matter, which is what you said. "
> What evidence would you expect?
> 

It’s your model. It’s your obligation to make the discerning prediction and
show WHY that follows as a necessary consequence of the model. That’s how
scientists work. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#680899

Odd
"
It’s your model. It’s your obligation to make the discerning prediction and 
show WHY that follows as a necessary consequence of the model. That’s how 
scientists work. "
Guess the precessing thing has to show- high OR low.
Attophysics or radio telescopes

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

#680903

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> "
> It’s your model. It’s your obligation to make the discerning prediction and 
> show WHY that follows as a necessary consequence of the model. That’s how 
> scientists work. "
> Guess the precessing thing has to show- high OR low.

How, exactly.  Calculate. 

> Attophysics or radio telescopes
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web