Q&A with David Rideout: Testing Reality in Space

Special Relativity : The Root of All the Evil

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

An exaggeration? No. The idiotic concept of time introduced by special relativity has been paralyzing physics for a very long time. Actually everybody is avoiding it like plague but officially scientists have to regularly sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" and pretend to believe the story of the travelling twin who returns younger than his sedentary brother:

Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation of common-sense ideas about time. Different observers, moving at constant velocity relative to one another, require different notions of time, since their clocks run differently. Yet each such observer can use his "time" to describe what he sees, and every description will give valid results, using the same laws of physics. In short: According to special relativity, there are many quite different but equally valid ways of assigning times to events. Einstein himself understood the importance of breaking free from the idea that there is an objective, universal "now." Yet, paradoxically, today's standard formulation of quantum mechanics makes heavy use of that discredited "now."

Etienne Klein: "On pourrait s'attendre à voir la cosmologie confirmer la vision d'un espace-temps statique telle que la prône la relativité restreinte. Il n'en est rien. La quasi-unanimité des physiciens s'accorde aujourd'hui sur des modèles d'univers particuliers, dits de big bang, dans lesquels on peut définir un temps cosmologique, lié à l'expansion de l'univers. Sans pour autant s'identifier au temps absolu de Newton, ce temps cosmologique partage avec lui la propriété d'être universel : des observateurs qui ne sont soumis à aucune accélération et ne subissent aucun effet gravitationnel mutuel peuvent en effet synchroniser leurs montres, et celles-ci resteront en phase tout au long de l'évolution cosmique."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho,

What you are calling idiotic intrigued Max Planck, the man who made Einstein accepted. How can this be understood? Perhaps, we may blame in part Planck's reluctance to swallow alternative theories. Michelson's null result was not and is perhaps still not yet correctly digested.

Everybody expected empty space to behave like a sound-carrying medium and to accordingly show two-way behavior as demonstrated by Norbert Feist's experiment. Feist's data do actually correspond to the Lorentz formula: The two-way speed of the wave depends on the squared velocity of the medium.

Michelson didn't like Einstein's "monster" theory. Nonetheless, he hesitated to accept the perhaps only reasonable explanation of his null result:

Light is his own carrier in empty of matter space, which has no preferred point to refer to. Space just constitutes distances.

Feist was certainly wrong when he claimed that his measurement confirms the ether hypothesis. Instead, it shows that the dependency on squared velocity (as calculated with Lorentz gamma and adopted by Einstein) belongs to the disproved by Michelson ether hypothesis.

Eckard

Special Relativity : The Root of All the Evil II

Einstein's fundamental rationality-killing step: "the rescaled "local time" variable t' of Lorentz was "purely and simply, the time", as experienced by a moving observer":

Thibault Damour: "Textbook presentations of Special Relativity often fail to convey the revolutionary nature, with respect to the "common conception of time", of the seminal paper of Einstein in June 1905. It is true that many of the equations, and mathematical considerations, of this paper were also contained in a 1904 paper of Lorentz, and in two papers of Poincare submitted in June and July 1905. It is also true that the central informational core of a physical theory is defined by its fundamental equations, and that for some theories (notably Quantum Mechanics) the fundamental equations were discovered before their physical interpretation. However, in the case of Special Relativity, the egregious merit of Einstein was, apart from his new mathematical results and his new physical predictions (notably about the comparison of the readings of clocks which have moved with respect to each other) the conceptual breakthrough that the rescaled "local time" variable t' of Lorentz was "purely and simply, the time", as experienced by a moving observer. This new conceptualization of time implied a deep upheaval of the common conception of time. Max Planck immediately realized this and said, later, that Einstein's breakthrough exceeded in audacity everything that had been accomplished so far in speculative science, and that the idea of non-Euclidean geometries was, by comparison, mere "child's play"."

Poincaré could not take that step, although the Lorentz transforms (of which he was one of the authors) urged him to do so - the step led to the absurd conclusion that, as the observer starts moving towards the light source and, accordingly, the wavecrests start hitting him more frequently, the speed of the wavecrests relative to the observer nevertheless remains unchanged:

Les écrits épistémologiques de Poincaré, obstacles à la diffusion de la relativité?, Vincent Borella, p. 74: "Pour Einstein le postulat de la constance de la vitesse de la lumière par rapport à n'importe quel référentiel dans lequel elle est mesurée (ce qui est une expression du principe de relativité) est suffisant, alors qu'en fait, pour Poincaré, la vitesse de la lumière ne peut être constante que relativement au milieu dans lequel elle se propage, à savoir l'éther supposé immobile."

The Mystery of the Einstein-Poincaré Connection, Olivier Darrigol: "It is clear from the context that Poincaré meant here to apply the postulate [of constancy of the speed of light] only in an ether-bound frame, in which case he could indeed state that it had been "accepted by everybody." In 1900 and in later writings he defined the apparent time of a moving observer in such a way that the velocity of light measured by this observer would be the same as if he were at rest (with respect to the ether). This does not mean, however, that he meant the postulate to apply in any inertial frame. From his point of view, the true velocity of light in a moving frame was not a constant but was given by the Galilean law of addition of velocities."

Pentcho Valev

Special Relativity : The Root of All the Evil III

Harvey Brown: "It is argued that the methodology of Einstein's 1905 theory represents a victory of pragmatism over explanatory depth; and that its adoption only made sense in the context of the chaotic state of physics at the start of the 20th century - as Einstein well knew."

The state was chaotic because in 1887 scientists failed (or refused) to see that the only existing theory able to explain the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment was Newton's emission theory of light stating that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the emitter. Lorentz and Fitzgerald started to Procrusteanize space and time to fit the ether theory's false tenet that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter, and Einstein's special relativity was the final nail in the coffin of sane science.

Now it may be too late - "the true reality obscured by the spacetime mirage" is perhaps lost forever:

It's Likely That Times Are Changing: "Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce. (...) Physicists of the 21st century therefore face the task of finding the true reality obscured by the spacetime mirage."

Pentcho Valev

"Einstein's proof that distant events cannot be unambiguously simultaneous (different observers, moving rapidly with respect to each other, may not always perceive the same time-order of events)."

This will perhaps never persuade me. If one assumes that there is a common now, then it is quite natural to me that observers may perceive pictures of reality that are affected as described by Christian Doppler for one-way propagation. Lorentz gamma was fabricated as to rescue the hypothesis that light is bound to some reference point of space. Michelson's experiment did not confirm this hypothesis. Unfortunately, nobody was ready to accept the consequence of the possibility that space has no beginning and no end and therefore no natural point to refer to.

Who is ready to accept that space is not a medium but just distances?

Eckard

Special Relativity : The Root of All the Evil IV

"Relativity and Its Roots", Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."

This means that the following two sets of postulates/hypotheses are able to explain the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment:

SET I:

1. The principle of relativity is correct.

2. The speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter like the speed of any material projectile.

SET II:

1. The principle of relativity is correct.

2. The speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter.

3. Lengths contract so that SET II's postulates 1 and 2 can become consistent with the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Initially Poincaré found SET II's postulate 3 unacceptable:

Henri Poincaré: "...les termes du second ordre auraient dû devenir sensibles, et cependant le résultat [de l'expérience de Michelson-Morley] a encore été négatif, la théorie de Lorentz laissant prévoir un résultat positif. On a alors imaginé une hypothèse supplémentaire: tous les corps subiraient un raccourcissement dans le sens du mouvement de la Terre... cette étrange propriété semblerait un véritable coup de pouce donné par la nature pour éviter que le mouvement de la Terre puisse être révélé par des phénomènes optiques. Ceci ne saurait me satisfaire..."

In the end Poincaré did accept length contraction but only as an initial postulate/hypothesis whose truthfulness is by no means guaranteed (Einsteinians managed to convince the world that length contraction is a glorious consequence of SET II's postulates 1 and 2):

Understanding Relativity: A Simplified Approach to Einstein's Theories, Leo Sartori, p.131: "The special force, which became known as "Poincaré stress" or "Poincaré pressure" is a red herring. As Einstein showed, the contraction is inherently a kinematic effect, a direct consequence of the properties of space and time expressed through the Lorentz transformation. Whatever forces are present in matter must transform in a manner consistent with the contraction; no special force is needed. As late as 1909, Poincaré still had not disabused himself of this fundamental misunderstanding. In a lecture at Göttingen, he asserted that the "new mechanics" is based on three hypotheses, of which the third is the longitudinal deformation of a body in translational motion. (The first two were Einstein's two postulates.)"

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho,

If c depends on gravity, how does this affect epsilon_0 or my_0?

Eckard

Special Relativity : The Root of All the Evil V

Rationality in Divine Albert's world is so devastated that Einsteinians can safely make career and money by rejecting the idiotic "relative" time introduced by special relativity and advocating, in one way or another, the old Newtonian time:

"If there's one thing Einstein taught us, it's that time is relative. But physicist Petr Horava is challenging this notion... (...) Now Horava, at the University of California, Berkeley, claims to have found a solution that is both simple and - in physics terms, at least - sacrilegious. To make the two theories gel, he argues, you need to throw out Einstein's tenet that time is always relative, never absolute. Horava's controversial idea is based on the fact that the description of space and time in the quantum and relativistic worlds are in conflict. Quantum theory harks back to the Newtonian concept that time is absolute - an impassive backdrop against which events take place. In contrast, general relativity tells us that space and time are fundamentally intertwined; two events can only be marked relative to one another, and not relative to an absolute background clock. Einstein's subjective notion of time is well accepted and is the hallmark of Lorentz invariance, the property that lies at the heart of general relativity. "Lorentz invariance is not actually fundamental to a theory of quantum gravity," says Horava."

"Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to differ.(...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi."

John Norton: "It is common to dismiss the passage of time as illusory since its passage has not been captured within modern physical theories. I argue that this is a mistake. Other than the awkward fact that it does not appear in our physics, there is no indication that the passage of time is an illusion. (...) The passage of time is a real, objective fact that obtains in the world independently of us. How, you may wonder, could we think anything else? One possibility is that we might think that the passage of time is some sort of illusion, an artifact of the peculiar way that our brains interact with the world. Indeed that is just what you might think if you have spent a lot of time reading modern physics. Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and all other processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage of time."

Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy): "Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity is an anthology of original essays by an international team of leading philosophers and physicists... (...) NFORTUNATELY FOR EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL RELATIVITY, HOWEVER, ITS EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND ONTOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOW SEEN TO BE QUESTIONABLE, UNJUSTIFIED, FALSE, PERHAPS EVEN ILLOGICAL. (...) In my opinion, by far the best way for the tenser to respond to Putnam et al is to adopt the Lorentz 1915 interpretation of time dilation and Fitzgerald contraction. Lorentz attributed these effects (and hence the famous null results regarding an aether) to the Lorentz invariance of the dynamical laws governing matter and radiation, not to spacetime structure. On this view, Lorentz invariance is not a spacetime symmetry but a dynamical symmetry, and the special relativistic effects of dilation and contraction are not purely kinematical. The background spacetime is Newtonian or neo-Newtonian, not Minkowskian. Both Newtonian and neo-Newtonian spacetime include a global absolute simultaneity among their invariant structures (with Newtonian spacetime singling out one of neo-Newtonian spacetimes many preferred inertial frames as the rest frame). On this picture, there is no relativity of simultaneity and spacetime is uniquely decomposable into space and time."

Pentcho Valev

Neil Turok in a Crazy Situation

Neil Turok: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all."

In his book "The Universe Within" Turok refers to the genesis of the madness:

Neil Turok: "In every argument, there are hidden assumptions. The more deeply they are buried, the longer it takes to reveal them. Newton had assumed that time is absolute: all observers could synchronize their clocks and, no matter how they moved around, their clocks would always agree. He had also assumed an absolute notion of space. Different observers might occupy different positions and move at different velocities, but they would always agree on the relative positions of objects and the distances between them. It took Einstein to realize that these two very reasonable assumptions - of absolute time and space - were actually incompatible with Maxwell's theory of light. The only way to ensure that everyone would agree on the speed of light was to have them each experience different versions of space and time."

Why should everyone "agree on the speed of light" and experience "different versions of space and time" as a result? Maxwell's theory did not require any such agreement - rather, it predicted that the speed of light was different for differently moving observers:

John Norton: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

Gabrielle Bonnet, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon: "Les équations de Maxwell font en particulier intervenir une constante, c, qui est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide. Par un changement de référentiel classique, si c est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide dans un premier référentiel, et si on se place désormais dans un nouveau référentiel en translation par rapport au premier à la vitesse constante v, la lumière devrait désormais aller à la vitesse c-v si elle se déplace dans la direction et le sens de v, et à la vitesse c+v si elle se déplace dans le sens contraire."

Stephen Hawking: "Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton's theory had got rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to be measured relative to. It was therefore suggested that there was a substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in "empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed relative to the ether would remain fixed."

The different-observers-experience-different-versions-of-space-and-time concept is so idiotic that scientists officially worship it (otherwise no salaries) but actually avoid it like plague:

Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation of common-sense ideas about time. Different observers, moving at constant velocity relative to one another, require different notions of time, since their clocks run differently. Yet each such observer can use his "time" to describe what he sees, and every description will give valid results, using the same laws of physics. In short: According to special relativity, there are many quite different but equally valid ways of assigning times to events. Einstein himself understood the importance of breaking free from the idea that there is an objective, universal "now." Yet, paradoxically, today's standard formulation of quantum mechanics makes heavy use of that discredited "now."

Etienne Klein: "On pourrait s'attendre à voir la cosmologie confirmer la vision d'un espace-temps statique telle que la prône la relativité restreinte. Il n'en est rien. La quasi-unanimité des physiciens s'accorde aujourd'hui sur des modèles d'univers particuliers, dits de big bang, dans lesquels on peut définir un temps cosmologique, lié à l'expansion de l'univers. Sans pour autant s'identifier au temps absolu de Newton, ce temps cosmologique partage avec lui la propriété d'être universel : des observateurs qui ne sont soumis à aucune accélération et ne subissent aucun effet gravitationnel mutuel peuvent en effet synchroniser leurs montres, et celles-ci resteront en phase tout au long de l'évolution cosmique."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho,

Hawking did correctly describe the idea of a light carrying aether relative to which the speed of light could be constant.

I don't have his book at hand. Perhaps he mentioned that Michelson disproved the aether idea.

Did Hawking not see the possibility that the speed of light might neither depend on a medium nor on the velocity of the emitter but it may simply equal to the difference between the position of emitter at the moment of emission and the position of the receiver at the moment of arrival divided by the belonging time of flight?

I see this possibility contradicting to emission theories and to SR but not to Michelson's null result. The current variant of Maxwell's equations does not consider convective terms. Where is the problem?

Eckard

Eckard

From Wiki:

1. First postulate (principle of relativity)

The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of coordinates in uniform translatory motion. OR: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.

2. Second postulate (invariance of c)

As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. OR: The speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference.

The two-postulate basis for special relativity is the one historically used by Einstein, and it remains the starting point today. As Einstein himself later acknowledged, the derivation tacitly makes use of some additional assumptions, including spatial homogeneity, isotropy, and memorylessness.......

END WIKI

Enter CIG:

CIG Theory is the same in all inertial frames of reference.

At "c", mass manifests itself into a new spatial quantity. Mass follows Lorentz transformation percentages as it offers its equivalency of mass into space. From: Black Hole to Dark Matter to Dark Energy (zero % "c" to full 'c")

CIG Theory's single postulate:

Believe It or Not

I sent Neil Turok my theory years ago but never heard back.

He is probably very busy.

I am confused busy.

Pentcho - do you believe in my theory?

I have become Space.

doug

Watching: The Uiverse:Microscopic Universe on TV

About the double slit and the concept of going back in time (the electrons are sent through, they are looked at on the other side of the slits but before they hit the screen as interferrence patterns; the act of observing them results in the particle pattern on the sreen; hence, the shows comment that the mere act of observing them imparts a manner of going back in time as though they were measured before they went through the slits which also results in a particle pattern on the screen) (refer to the show).

CIG explanation: there is no going back in time; the act of observing the electron waves collapses them; since to see them (observe) they must be stopped; as stopped they turn massive again (from their CIG spatial equivalence); as particles again they hit the screen with the particle pattern)

slow = particle

fast = space (wave sphere)

Tunneling = fast = spatial = classical particle is now quantum space and can "tunnel" through another classical barrier

Use the CUPI quantification

Heisenberg Uncertainty Priciple - CIG Interpretation - the particle changes size according to a rate based equation, so it is bigger when faster (and more vacuum like)

The more we know how much debt the government has, the less we know where it is being spent. Stop to find out where it is being spent, lose track of the debt!

Lee Smolin blames "Newton, Einstein and all the others" for the crisis in modern physics:

[link:www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blog/lee-smolin-physics-crisis-time/]"Physics, he [Lee Smolin] says, is in crisis.[/link] What is needed is not more delving into the strange soup of string theory, or any other such work, but a fundamental re-working of the common conception of what physics is. Ever since Plato and up to Newton, Einstein and all the others, physics has been crippled by a terrible mistake. Physicists have been wrong in their assumptions about the science they studied. Smolin has arrived, he says, with the corrective. The concept on which Smolin bases his thesis is Time - that most confusing, fungible and counter-intuitive of all the ideas in science, and philosophy. Smolin's contention is that time has been excluded from physics - that the equations of physics have about them the property of being timeless, whereas the natural world does not. This is the contradiction that Smolin highlights and that he seeks to correct."

Two years ago Smolin blamed only Einstein - Newton was OK:

"Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to differ. (...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi."

Ten years ago Smolin knew exactly where Einstein had gone wrong:

Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, p. 226: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy and universality of the speed of light. Could the first postulate be true and the other false? If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only the second postulate."

Pentcho Valev

Peter & Community:

I offer that Dark Matter is Darker than Dark Energy and correct a previous post as follows:

In a post on quantum discord, I stated the following, as partially excerpted:

The space within the expanded balloon is massively Darker matter (since the particles are not traveling that terriby fast, though fast enough to offer up new space) as opposed to the electric field escaping from and surrounding a wire with a current going through it (since the rate of travel is great) which manifests into a much darker dark matter (but perhaps not quite Dark Energy). The electric field has been created as new space (i.e. traveling massive particles and CIG Theory). Apparently it appears that the matter cannot cross the boundary nor can certain (relatively slow traveling forms of matter) manifested forms of dark matter. The Dark Energy can (pure space) and fast traveling particles become spatially non-matter enough to cross the barrier.

END PARTIAL EXCERPT MY POST ON QUANTUM DISCORD

Wherein I stated: ....a much darker dark matter (but perhaps not quite Dark Energy)....

We need to define which is darker: Dark Matter or Dark Energy

In retrospect, I should have stated "LIGHTER" dark matter (but perhaps not as light as Dark Energy)

And this for thr following rationale:

In the MTS equation, a Black Hole is on the left hand side of the equation (all M) while the right hand side of the equation represents Dark Energy (all S)

So, if it can be rationalized that a Black Hole is darker than Dark Matter, it then follows cohesively that Dark Matter is darker than Dark Energy.

I believe it can be rationlized that a "BLACK" hole is darker than both Dark Matter and Dark Energy, and so it follows that Dark Matter (gravitationally pulling matter) is darker than Dark Energy.

Therefore, if not already defined by the "community", Dark Matter is herein defined as darker than Dark Energy and I correct my post on Quantum Discord as noted above:

I should have stated "LIGHTER" dark matter (but perhaps not as light as Dark Energy)

OR, has the community already adopted a consensus on which is darker, Dark Matter or Dark Energy?????

Comments please. Simple Question

So, the next time you are asked "which is darker, dark matter or dark energy?", simply reply:

Why, as a matter of course, Dark Matter of course!

THX

doug

Doug,

I'm a bit in the dark about matter. I find energy less visible than any matter as I don't rely just on human eye-sight to see either.

To qualify as what's known as dark matter all a particle need to be is non baryonic and have a zero EM 'footprint', which is equivalent to the same refractive co-efficient as the continuum (n=1).

As plasma physics frightens so may theorists away it seems to have gone unnoticed that electron-fermion pairs, now allowed to be condensed as matter and evolve to Marjorm electrons and bosons (protons) by the BEH (Higgs) mechanism, have a very high coupling constant but also n=1.

And of course they are what we find when we go and look. They also give the hide-and-seek game away the moment they move, as they diffract light via JM rotation of the optical axis, as the recent VLBA finding.

However, my guess is that if you paint everything black, then you'll be right, because I don't think you can paint the continuum. It's a bit etherial. But does that matter?

Peter

Peter,

Then, if it matters, I gather that you are saying that Dark Energy is darker than Dark Matter, which does make some sense in the context that you are offering it.

So, my first post was then the more correct (always go with the first choice- I believe they taught us this in school).

Is this the agreement then amongst cosmologists?

Peter's call.

[ ] Dark Energy is darker than Dark Matter

[ ] Dark matter is darker than Dark Energy

THX always for responding

doug

doug,

'Agreement' and 'cosmologists' don't correspond. 'Seeing' is in the brain of the beholder, judged only against pre-doctrinated expectations.

On a scale of "what effects what we see most easily", we may superficially say that if we shine light on both and move them, then we can perceive effects fro dark MATTER more easily.

BUT. That may only be because we've not been told that without dark energy we may be able to 'see' anything AT ALL! It may be needed for the transmission of light period!!

In that case it would be far easier to detect it's presence; We can 'see things!

So as Popper pointed out, our deepest foundations are still founded on muddy hidden assumptions.

(And it's too dark down there to see them!)

Peter

Peter,

Thank you for responding. Very reliable you are.

[x] Dark Energy is darker than Dark Matter

As regards the black hole, perhaps this too is darker than Dark Matter. This would balance the MTS equation. Black hole on one side (very dark indeed). Then, all the particles, standard model, then dark matter. Then on the extreme "S" side of the equation, the dark side of Dark Energy. MTS

THX

doug

Article States:

General relativity also introduced the world to the notion of spacetime, a smooth fabric that pervades the universe and gives rise to gravity as it warps and bends around heavy objects.

End Excerpt

NOTE: The spacetime when fully warped becomes the matter. MTS

www.CIGTheory.com (in need of a rewrite) (P.O.Box down)

THX

doug