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 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#680908

Odd
"How, exactly.  Calculate. "
By observing it.
Either with telescopes or lasers.

One interesting thing is error bars for celestial objects. They should be getting smaller, but they're not, and they show a trend that could only be explained if our galaxy is precessing. Wait for it.

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

#680911

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> "How, exactly.  Calculate. "
> By observing it.
> Either with telescopes or lasers.

Lasers?

How fast is what you’re looking for?

> 
> One interesting thing is error bars for celestial objects. They should be getting smaller, 

Why???

> but they're not, and they show a trend that could only be explained if
> our galaxy is precessing. Wait for it.
> 



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

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

#680930

Odd
"
> "How, exactly.  Calculate. " 
> By observing it. 
> Either with telescopes or lasers. 

Lasers? 

How fast is what you’re looking for? 

"
Attophysics uses crossed laser beams.
Atoms should precess once every 50 attoseconds.
Galaxies should precess once every 500 million years.

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

#680937

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Atoms should precess once every 50 attoseconds.
>Galaxies should precess once every 500 million years.

If you want to have a model, John, it will need to explain
_why_ an atom "should" precess once every 50 attoseconds (or
at any other speed, for that matter), as well as explain why
a galaxy should precess once every 500 million years. That
is, what problems does that precession solve, and how.

In addition, it will need to explain the apparent violations
of conservation of momentum, of energy, accelerating charges
radiating energy away, how can a non-solid galaxy rotating
at different speeds precess at all, etc. etc.

I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

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

#680939

MM
"john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes: 

>Atoms should precess once every 50 attoseconds. 
>Galaxies should precess once every 500 million years. 

If you want to have a model, John, it will need to explain 
_why_ an atom "should" precess once every 50 attoseconds (or 
at any other speed, for that matter), as well as explain why 
a galaxy should precess once every 500 million years. That 
is, what problems does that precession solve, and how. "

Precession allows rapidly-moving electrons to occupy a spherical volume while all rotating in the same plane and sharing the same magnetic field.
Same for stars.

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

#680995

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> MM
> "john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes: 
> 
>> Atoms should precess once every 50 attoseconds. 
>> Galaxies should precess once every 500 million years. 
> 
> If you want to have a model, John, it will need to explain 
> _why_ an atom "should" precess once every 50 attoseconds (or 
> at any other speed, for that matter), as well as explain why 
> a galaxy should precess once every 500 million years. That 
> is, what problems does that precession solve, and how. "
> 
> Precession allows rapidly-moving electrons to occupy a spherical volume
> while all rotating in the same plane and sharing the same magnetic field.

Precession also requires external torque. Where from?

> Same for stars.
> 



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

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

#681000

Odd
"

Precession also requires external torque. Where from? 
"
Space

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

#681002

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Odd
>"

>Precession also requires external torque. Where from? 
>"

I never did get a non-evasive answer from him whenever I asked the same
question.

>Space

And the streak is unbroken.  It's all magic.

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

#681005

And that's what causes ALL discs to be warped out of the plane on their OUTSIDE edge- the torque of Space

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

#681001

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>MM
>"john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes: 

>>Atoms should precess once every 50 attoseconds. 
>>Galaxies should precess once every 500 million years. 

>If you want to have a model, John, it will need to explain 
>_why_ an atom "should" precess once every 50 attoseconds (or 
>at any other speed, for that matter), as well as explain why 
>a galaxy should precess once every 500 million years. That 
>is, what problems does that precession solve, and how. "

>Precession allows rapidly-moving electrons to occupy a spherical volume 
>while all rotating in the same plane and sharing the same magnetic field.

And this solves which problem?

And what about the radiation as the retarded electron careens around that
squiggly path???

>Same for stars.

And what use is that?

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

#681004

MM
"
And this solves which problem? 

And what about the radiation as the retarded electron careens around that 
squiggly path??? 

>Same for stars. 

And what use is that? "

The radiation released by all electrons as they accelerate around their centres is not OUR photons and neutrinos but smaller-gauge ones. It flows everywhere and causes Gravity/Inertia.

Turning energy cannot NOT precess. Space FORCES it to do so. If it did not, there would be buildup of opposite effects on opposite sides of the rotation. These opposite effects on Space itself cause a back action that drives the precession. The result is a sphere.

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

#681017

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> MM
> "
> And this solves which problem? 
> 
> And what about the radiation as the retarded electron careens around that 
> squiggly path??? 
> 
>> Same for stars. 
> 
> And what use is that? "
> 
> The radiation released by all electrons as they accelerate around their
> centres is not OUR photons and neutrinos but smaller-gauge ones. It flows
> everywhere and causes Gravity/Inertia.
> 
> Turning energy cannot NOT precess. Space FORCES it to do so. 

Do you know what torque is? 
Care to explain how space would do that?

> If it did not, there would be buildup of opposite effects on opposite
> sides of the rotation. These opposite effects on Space itself cause a
> back action that drives the precession. The result is a sphere.
> 



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

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

#681020

Odd
"> Turning energy cannot NOT precess. Space FORCES it to do so. 

Do you know what torque is? 
Care to explain how space would do that? 
"
Before you can understand how Matter and space behave, you would have to have some knowledge  of what they ARE. 
What characteristics do matter and space share?

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

#680941

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> "
>> "How, exactly.  Calculate. " 
>> By observing it. 
>> Either with telescopes or lasers. 
> 
> Lasers? 
> 
> How fast is what you’re looking for? 
> 
> "
> Attophysics uses crossed laser beams.
> Atoms should precess once every 50 attoseconds.
> Galaxies should precess once every 500 million years.
> 

So lasers to measure galactic precession how?

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#680918

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>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

If you want to have a model, John, you will have to describe relationships
physically and mathematically, you will hae to demonstrate mathematically
your relationships are consistent with what we already know about our
universe (that rules out precessing galaxies for example), you will have
to show why your relationships are superior to existing models, and
you will have to make mathematical predictions that someone with the right
equipment can actually do your math and make observations to see whether
you are right or not.

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

#680916

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

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

1) Some evidence "layers" are there;
2) Some evidence that there are multiple different types (at least 4-5);
3) Enough knowledge about these 4+ types to detect a pattern;
4) The pattern can be described by a fractal (within error bars of what
   we can see)
5) If it's an infinite fractal, as opposed to a fern, the pattern would
   have to be quite definite and be able to be modeled mathematically.

So far you are 0 for 5. There's evidence of, for example, dark matter but
none that it is some other "layer", and the number of "layers" found so
far is 1 (our own). Even you can imagine just one additional layer with
just some handwaving at more.

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

#680871

On 4/11/2018 8:56 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "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.

I agree, in the sense that limited fractals are all around us in 
interesting ways.


> But fractal layers of matter? No evidence of that.

Think of going out in space and looking at the Earth. Then quickly zoom 
out billions of light years by moving away from our planet. Once that is 
accomplished, then start zooming in where the Earth gets closer and 
closer. Afaict, the way back will go through fractal-like layers of matter.

Generally:

Moons orbit planets

Planets orbit stars

Solar systems orbit around in their home galaxy.

There are clusters of solar systems in orbit.

There are clusters of galaxies orbiting multiple hyper massive black holes.

There are clusters of clusters of galaxies.

Sounds fractal like. Perhaps, it does stop at Planck length wrt zooming 
in. Don't know for sure.

However, I do know that it sounds fractal in nature.

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

#680716

Pnal
"The Scientific Method does *not* include making things up as you go along, that's bad ju-ju.."
Actually, Pnal, I'm putting some of the final pieces in the puzzle. Using my model. It's fun.

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

#680717

On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 7:29:35 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> Pnal
> "The Scientific Method does *not* include making things up as you go along, that's bad ju-ju.."
> Actually, Pnal, I'm putting some of the final pieces in the puzzle. Using my model. It's fun.

Well, that's all it is, fun for you. It is not even remotely science.

Have a good time, but don't count on anyone else buying in, that's not going to happen.

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

#680718

Pnal
"Have a good time, but don't count on anyone else buying in, that's not going to happen. "
Okay!

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web