Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: I may have figured out Dark Matter and a Unified Theory

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    16

    Lightbulb I may have figured out Dark Matter and a Unified Theory

    Speed of light: 299,792,458 meters per second

    I'm convinced it has to be this speed to allow a quantum/classical boundary. A Femtosecond holds the key of 0.3 micrometers. An object with this width is going to be auto-observed ..have a physical state. The speed of light is the speed it is in order for quantum events to occur. If it was any faster a Femtosecond could cover 0.2 micrometers and prevent quantum weirdness from being a thing.

    The speed of light is directly tied to the spaceTime and it seems to be a frame rate.

    I suspect the default speed of light is actually 200,000,000 m/s and a multiplier of 1.49896229 is added to the frame rate to equal 299,792,458 m/s

    Again, the multiplier is to ensure the quantum/classical boundary size.

    If we take the speed of light and multiply it by 5 we get: 299,792,458 m/s x 5 = 1.49896229×10^15 Micrometers per second (1,498,962,290,000,000)

    I think it is telling us 1,498,962,290 m/s is the speed of light when spacetime isn't involved.

    The speed of light gets divided by 5. Is it saying time gets split between 5 different dimensions?

    299,792,458 m/s x 5 = 1,498,962,290 m/s or 1,498,962,290,000,000 Micrometers per second 1,498,962,290,000,000 / 5 = 2.9979246e+14 || 299,792,460,000,000

    I think this is saying the auto-observe key is actually 0.29979246 Micrometers

    speed of light 299,792,458 / auto-observe 0.29979246 micrometers to meters 0.00000029979246 = 999,999,990,000,000

    Light has a max of auto-observing 999,999,990,000,000 clumps of matter each second.

    1000000000000000 - 999999990000000 = 10,000,000

    I think that is somewhere around 0.00000001% of a difference.

    "The official definition of a meter today is: 1⁄299792458 of the distance traveled by light in a vacuum, in 1 second. ... A consequence of using this definition is that any attempt to measure the speed of light is cyclical; you must use a “meter” to measure it at some point, which relies on the speed of light"

    A Meter is based on 10's, it scales.

    Time is Spacetime. I bring up the parallel universes because the math implies it. It can't be a coincidence that the speed of light x 5 equals that many micrometers.

    You can rest assured a femtosecond of light is a unit of spacetime. The quantum/classical boundary demands it.

    The split in 5 might be telling use there are 4 parallel universes.

    https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100....2010.130.html

    This link says: 0.3 becomes 30 ..well, maybe just for objects allowed to interact with 0.3 objects and not give them a physical state. This explains why quantum weirdness events are allowed to occur in plants and animals.

    Space and Time are directly tied. Or should I say Distance and Time? The frame rate of spacetime has been increased for light to be the speed it is.

    If I'm right, the quantum/classical boundary should be different throughout the fabric of spacetime ..like time dilation.

    Time dilation and the boundary must be insane in cosmic voids. This has to by why they are expanding.

    Spacetime converts quantum waves that have a width of 0.3 or larger and automatically gives them a physical state. The wave is now also a particle, it is in a duality ..the quantum field and spacetime are influencing it. It isn't going to perform quantum weirdness events but will wobble like a wave. Observation can be performed on purpose with smaller objects ..what I care about are the auto-observed sizes.

    Matter waves not decaying is pretty strong evidence that spacetime isn't involved with unobserved quantum waves.

    Side thought: I don't think the quantum field has a causality limit for unobserved quantum waves.

    The reason Einstein failed at a unifying theory is because he refused to believe anything could be without spacetime.I think spacetime is available everywhere ..but is not enacted everywhere. I think Mass enacts it (the boundary).

    If you toss a rock into a cosmic void, spacetime will form around its mass like a bubble. It will experience the maximum time dilation and quantum/classical boundary spacetime can handle. Because of the spacetime bubble size. If the rock is around the size of the new boundary (for its new bubble) it would disappear into quantum waves and so would the spacetime bubble (assuming the rock didn't have a physical state at the time).

    Is this why we are seeing stars older than time? Are the stars in question living in cosmic voids? Anything that ages, has a physical state.

    lorentz doesn't apply to quantum waves without a physical state ..there is nothing to trade-off.

    If galaxies are these enacted spacetime bubbles ..do we need dark matter to be a thing anymore?

    The stars we see moving so fast at the edges of galaxies is due to its own spacetime bubble is mostly sticking out of the galaxy bubble. That star is moving in space with extreme time dilation.

    We should be asking ourselves how much mass = how much spacetime?

    I wouldn't want to be the first person to leave the galaxy. You would age and the different scale of the quantum/classical boundary would probably do something awful to your body.

    Spacetime that isn't enacted would be like a deflated balloon ..lifeless. I'm asking what size the bubble gets per 0.3 micrometer of mass. Is the galaxy a giant spacetime bubble ..or more like a tent city?

    We can compare galaxies with slow edge stars to ones with fast to give us a clue to the size.

    This thread contains all the ingredients to formulate a Unified Theory.

    The speed of light (causality) is the frame rate of spacetime. The frame rate determines the quantum/classical boundary.

    Quantum weirdness events will not occur if the 0.3 micrometer object can be completely observed in a single frame. The exception being, 30 micrometer objects are allowed to interact without causing decoherence to a 0.2 micrometer object.

    Unobserved QM = Quantum Field

    Duality = QFT (both spacetime and the quantum field) (no quantum weirdness except for wobble ..and the quantum Zeno effect, the quantum field is still making it ageless. )

    Spacetime = GR







    Q/A

    Objects with smaller distances can be observed. According to your cited study, this is just the largest (in 2010) example of quantum effects being seen at a (relatively) large scale. This does not mean it is the minimum distance nor does it mean the size necessarily implies observation.
    Yeah, no kidding. You are not getting what I mean by auto-observe. Particles can decohere without a human observing them. The size that doesn't need a human AND can be shot in the double slit experiment without fringes, is what the boundary is about. The link I pointed to is saying 30 micrometer objects can interact with 0.299 particles without giving them a physical state ..or causing them to decohere (same thing).



    If it was faster, more than 0.3 micrometers would be covered, not less. I also fail to see what makes it such that 0.2 micrometers would prevent such.
    If the frame rate was faster, a photon would reach farther per particle. A 0.2 could still have quantum events but not as many as a 0.3



    Ok, now why do you suspect that default speed? The multiplication holds, but what makes 200,000,000 special?
    It was just a guess at first, but then that 1.49896229 showed up when multiplying the speed of light five times. Pretending that could be a coincidence, is insane.



    Uhh... ok? From your prior paragraph, 1.52 = ~3, and now we are discovering that ~35 = ~15. We just scaled the numbers to make them look like they line up.
    again, micrometers are a big deal for me and the boundary.



    Even if that were the case, what the hell would imply it is being split across dimensions (which, here, I assume you mean in a non-rigorous sense and are more alluding to sci-fi "dimensions). Or even split evenly, for that matter? Why not 2 divided in a ratio if 3:2? You are just pulling non sequiturs out of your ***.
    I'm saying there is extra time being used somewhere, somehow.



    What would cause you to make that connection? And what is a "clump"? Where did the 1000000000000000 come from???
    A clump, is a clump of matter that has a width of 0.3 micrometers. The max observe does seem like a useless fact, it might be telling us something about the processor power of spacetime.



    That is not what wave-particle duality is. Wave-particle duality that some wavelike behaviors and some particle-like behaviors are exhibited in quantum objects. This is described through something called the wavefunction, which has multiple interpretations, but is fundamentally a linear combination of complex vectors describing some feature
    Yeah, umm, my post is about new physics ..not outdated mainstream. Do you want to know what dark matter is or not?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,470
    pittsburghjoe

    First, welcome to CQ.

    Second, since you are apparently advocating a non-mainstream idea, I have moved your thread to our Against The Mainstream (ATM) sub-forum. This section of the forum has special rules and requirements.
    If you have not done so, I strongly advocate that you review our rules (link in my signature), particularly rule 13, and the stickies at the top of ATM. Among the requirements of this section are the requirements that you defend your idea, that you present evidence for it, and that you answer questions put to you about it.

    If you do not wish to follow this special rules, then please say so in your very next post in this thread, and we will close this thread with no penalty. If however you continue, you will be expected to follow these requirements.

    Have fun.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    16
    particle: 1a : a minute quantity or fragment. b : a relatively small or the smallest discrete portion or amount of something. 2 : any of the basic units of matter and energy (such as a molecule, atom, proton, electron, or photon
    particle(My Addition): If smaller than 0.3 micrometers, it is NOT automatically observed (given a physical state) ..unless touching an object that is larger than 30 micrometers.

    wave: digital form of a particle, unobservable
    wave(My Addition): Not real or physical. Can hold mass as a variable. Ghost.

    wave function: A wave function in quantum physics is a mathematical description of the quantum state of an isolated quantum system. The wave function is a complex-valued probability amplitude, and the probabilities for the possible results of measurements made on the system can be derived from it.
    wave function(My Addition): This is mostly for describing waves ..not a particle in duality. I suspect diffraction is directly involved and would considerably refine probabilities. A particle in duality isn't going to be in superposition.

    coherence: Quantum coherence deals with the idea that all objects have wave-like properties. If an object's wave-like nature is split in two, then the two waves may coherently interfere with each other in such a way as to form a single state that is a superposition of the two states.
    coherence(My Addition): remained a wave

    decoherence: Quantum decoherence is the loss of quantum coherence. In quantum mechanics, particles such as electrons are described by a wave function, a mathematical representation of the quantum state of a system; a probabilistic interpretation of the wave function is used to explain various quantum effects.
    decoherence(My Addition): given a physical state, is now in a duality mode

    superposition: The principle of quantum superposition states that if a physical system may be in one of many configurations—arrangements of particles or fields—then the most general state is a combination of all of these possibilities, where the amount in each configuration is specified by a complex number.
    superposition(My Addition): Can occur if only a wave, no duality.

    mass: The classical view of mass is that it quantifies the amount of substance and is a kinematical parameter. ... However, we emphasize that the most abundant component of matter - Nucleons - derives its mass largely as a consequence of quantum effects of (color gluonic QCD) radiation
    mass(My Addition): physical mass is observed/real (energy with a physical state). virtual mass is not real/physical, a quantum wave with a variable for mass.

    time: A chronon is a proposed quantum of time, that is, a discrete and indivisible "unit" of time as part of a hypothesis that proposes that time is not continuous.
    time(My Addition): the frame rate of spacetime, quantum waves do not use it.

    spacetime: In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model which fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional manifold. Spacetime diagrams can be used to visualize relativistic effects, such as why different observers perceive where and when events occur differently.
    spacetime(My Addition): Is what General Relativity describes. I suspect it is an analog simulation with a frame rate. The Quantum field doesn't use it including cosmic voids because there isn't enough mass to enact it.

    matter: physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit; (in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, especially as distinct from energy.
    matter(My Addition): virtual mass with a physical state. It is real/physical.

    state: In quantum physics, a quantum state is the state of an isolated quantum system. A quantum state provides a probability distribution for the value of each observable, i.e. for the outcome of each possible measurement on the system.
    state(My Addition): quantum waves don't have a state ..that job belongs to spacetime

    Matter-Wave: Matter waves are a central part of the theory of quantum mechanics, being an example of wave–particle duality. All matter exhibits wave-like behavior. For example, a beam of electrons can be diffracted just like a beam of light or a water wave. ... Matter waves are referred to as de Broglie waves.
    Matter-Wave(My Addition): Are not in a duality mode. It isn't physical. It doesn't have a physical state. "Duality-Wave" needs to be a thing. A Duality-Wave would be a particle moving on the path of a wave.
    Last edited by pittsburghjoe; 2019-Dec-26 at 07:56 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,460
    Sounds like a lot of word salad with some baseless numerology thrown in, Pitts.

    Can your theory fit on a T-shirt?
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    16
    Please tell me what you have a problem with. The number thing is there because other sites refused to question what matter waves not ageing mean. But also the speed of causality x 5 shouldn't have been something related to the boundary ..so I get to use it also.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,231
    It's hard to know where to start with this idea, there is just so much wrong with it. Ignoring the arbitrary numerology, scattershot assertions and wild leaps of questionable logic:

    - You link to the Cleland experiment which invalidates your claim that anything bigger than 0.3um will 'auto-observe' and then just hand-wave away the result because you already 'know' you are right. Your explanation as to why you are free to ignore the result is very incomplete. Please provide a more complete explanation of why this result doesn't refute your claim of the 0.3um limit.
    - You claim a granularity to spacetime that is orders of magnitude greater than observational evidence allows (e.g. the VERITAS work). Please explain why we don't see this granularity.

    But those two points really do miss the main issue with this - it reads more like a stream of consciousness essay than a scientific theory. Are you able to present these ideas in a manner in line with scientific methodology? Can you justify any of these arbitrary numbers, multiplications and associations? Can you provide an example of a prediction that your idea makes that is different to the current mainstream theories and testable?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,947
    Nothing in your posts makes much sense. This tiny extract captures much of what is wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
    wave: digital form of a particle, unobservable
    wave(My Addition): Not real or physical. Can hold mass as a variable. Ghost.
    By adding the second line ("my addition") it seems as if you think the first line is some sort of standard definition. But it isn't. That is just something you have made up as well. And it makes no sense. If you going to classify anything as "digital" it would be the particle, which is quantised. And the wave is more like an "analog" description (a continuous waveform). But the terms "analog" and "digital" don't really make any sense here.

    And you say that the wave is not observable but we can perform many experiments to observe the wave behaviour of particles.

    Saying "not real or physical" doesn't really mean anything unless you define what you mean by "real" or "physical". For example, you go on to say it can "hold mass" which means it must be measurable; which sounds like a definition of "real" to me.

    It is not clear what "holding mass" means, anyway. Just another made-up concept.

    And then you say "ghost" with no further explanation. Meaningless.

    The same kind of points can be made about every paragraph of your posts: a mixture of made-up, meaningless phrases and definitions with claims that are contradicted by evidence.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,788
    Do you realize that SI units are arbitrary? A second is just 1/60th of a minute, which is 1/60th of an hour, which is 1/24th the solar day, because those divisions have proven convenient for daily life. Earth's rotation rate varies slightly, so it was standardized to 9192631770 cycles of the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of Cs-133, which can be measured very accurately. There is nothing of significance to this number except that it is approximately 1/(60*60*24)th of a solar day. A femtosecond is just a particular named decimal fraction of a second, with no physical significance.

    The same goes for the meter. It was defined as 1/(10 million)th of the distance from the equator to the North pole along a great circle, because that works out to roughly the same as the poorly-standardized unit called the yard while giving a nice even number of meters on maps. This is inconvenient to precisely measure, so it was redefined to be the length of a prototype bar...literally just a chunk of metal with its length defined to be one meter. The Kr-86 definition and current definition as the distance traveled by light in vacuum in 1/299792458th of a second are just "close enough" to the same length while being easier to precisely and repeatably measure. There is nothing physically meaningful about the meter, or any "numerically nice" fraction of it. It could have originally been defined using the pole-to-pole distance or polar circumference, and been 2 or 4 times as large...this wasn't done because it'd be a less convenient unit.

    For systems of units that do have some foundation in physical meaning, look at Planck units. However, even these are arbitrary at some level, there are multiple ways to base unit systems on fundamental constants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck..._normalization

    Take a bunch of numbers and start looking for "relationships", and you will eventually start finding some. The enormous number of different ways to combine numbers means you're practically guaranteed to find what appear to be meaningful relationships even if you start with completely random numbers, ensuring that the only possible relationships are pure coincidence. This is why your approach is not scientifically valid.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    16
    I get it, you are angry that a random guy off the street figured this out before one of your beloved physicists. If you take anything away from this thread, let it be that spacetime is enacted by mass. That thought alone is revolutionary.

    - You link to the Cleland experiment which invalidates your claim that anything bigger than 0.3um will 'auto-observe' and then just hand-wave away the result because you already 'know' you are right. Your explanation as to why you are free to ignore the result is very incomplete. Please provide a more complete explanation of why this result doesn't refute your claim of the 0.3um limit.
    I was thrilled to find out that 30um spacetime sized objects can interact with 0.3um particles and not cause decoherence. We can harness the power of photosynthesis with this fact. Build a different type of quantum computer.
    The boundary on earth is around 0.3um. That means doing a matter wave test in a vacuum that the particles have a width of 0.3um or more are not going to display fringes in the double slit. The particle didn't go through both slits.

    - You claim a granularity to spacetime that is orders of magnitude greater than observational evidence allows (e.g. the VERITAS work). Please explain why we don't see this granularity.
    Observation/Decoherence is the same thing as saying spacetime got involved. A particle doesn't have to always be in a duality. Spacetime wants unobserved quantum waves to have the capability to do quantum things.

    Can you provide an example of a prediction that your idea makes that is different to the current mainstream theories and testable?
    - The boundary should be different throughout the fabric of spacetime like time dilation
    - Stars in small spacetime bubbles should be older and move faster than we think they should be
    - Observed particles shouldn't be able to tunnel
    - Matter Waves shouldn't decay
    - With the quantum field not using spacetime, light from the sun really does get granted a physical state 8 minutes ago before you observed it.
    - Quantum weirdness events will not occur when spacetime is involved

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,470
    Quote Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
    I get it, you are angry that a random guy off the street figured this out before one of your beloved physicists.
    Don't make this personal. All the questions put to you so far are legitimate. Keep your responses polite and don't question other's motives.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,231
    Quote Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
    I was thrilled to find out that 30um spacetime sized objects can interact with 0.3um particles and not cause decoherence. We can harness the power of photosynthesis with this fact. Build a different type of quantum computer.
    The 30um object was in a mixed state, not a classical state. I see nothing in what you have said that explains away this.

    Quote Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
    - The boundary should be different throughout the fabric of spacetime like time dilation
    - Stars in small spacetime bubbles should be older and move faster than we think they should be
    - Observed particles shouldn't be able to tunnel
    - Matter Waves shouldn't decay
    - With the quantum field not using spacetime, light from the sun really does get granted a physical state 8 minutes ago before you observed it.
    - Quantum weirdness events will not occur when spacetime is involved
    Which of these do you believe to be testable and can you provide example of observations that could be made that would provide evidence for or against these statements you have derived from your ideas? You are using a lot of standard terminology in non-standard ways here and I'd like to hear, from you, what you believe the observational evidence for your idea is. I'm pretty sure there is cosmological evidence against your claims (hint - where are the young stars clustered in a galaxy? It's not the core) but I'd like to hear the details of your predictions before I go firm on that.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    16
    By adding the second line ("my addition") it seems as if you think the first line is some sort of standard definition. But it isn't. That is just something you have made up as well. And it makes no sense. If you going to classify anything as "digital" it would be the particle, which is quantised. And the wave is more like an "analog" description (a continuous waveform). But the terms "analog" and "digital" don't really make any sense here.
    You would rather a wave have the definition of only the wave function? Digital ..Virtual ..same thing, the point is that it is unobservable. Spacetime makes a digital wave, analog.

    And you say that the wave is not observable but we can perform many experiments to observe the wave behaviour of particles.
    Observable after the final panel (after the fact), doesn't mean anything. The particle only gets a physical state if observed during its flight. "Observation" in your scenario is not causing decoherence ..until the wave collapse of the final panel.

    Saying "not real or physical" doesn't really mean anything unless you define what you mean by "real" or "physical". For example, you go on to say it can "hold mass" which means it must be measurable; which sounds like a definition of "real" to me.

    It is not clear what "holding mass" means, anyway. Just another made-up concept.

    And then you say "ghost" with no further explanation. Meaningless
    Real/Physical = observed. The object isn't going to tunnel or be in superposition.
    An unobserved matter wave can have mass and still tunnel ..that means it can hold mass as a variable.
    "Ghost" give us humans a way to grasp what unobservable particles are.


    cjameshuff if you don't like my numbers then ignore it, but it might be our only evidence of parallel universes. Regardless, Matter Waves not using spacetime is the other gateway to my theory.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    16
    The 30um object was in a mixed state, not a classical state. I see nothing in what you have said that explains away this.
    Mixed state is the same thing a duality. 30um is being influenced by spacetime and the quantum field. We will be able to use this to upgrade technology.

    Which of these do you believe to be testable and can you provide example of observations that could be made that would provide evidence for or against these statements you have derived from your ideas? You are using a lot of standard terminology in non-standard ways here and I'd like to hear, from you, what you believe the observational evidence for your idea is.
    Most is already what we observe in quantum experiments. We could test the boundary/time dilation thing by doing the double slit in outer-space.

    I'm pretty sure there is cosmological evidence against your claims (hint - where are the young stars clustered in a galaxy? It's not the core) but I'd like to hear the details of your predictions before I go firm on that.
    I already said: Spacetime that isn't enacted would be like a deflated balloon ..lifeless. I'm asking what size the bubble gets per 0.3 micrometer of mass. Is the galaxy a giant spacetime bubble ..or more like a tent city?

    We can compare galaxies with slow edge stars to ones with fast to give us a clue to the size.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,231
    Quote Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
    Mixed state is the same thing a duality. 30um is being influenced by spacetime and the quantum field. We will be able to use this to upgrade technology.
    I asked you to provide a better explanation of your dismissal of this evidence against your theory. This is not a better explanation.

    Quote Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
    Most is already what we observe in quantum experiments. We could test the boundary/time dilation thing by doing the double slit in outer-space.
    I asked you to provide examples of the observations that would validate your statements. Could you please do so in considerably more detail than this?


    Quote Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
    I already said: Spacetime that isn't enacted would be like a deflated balloon ..lifeless. I'm asking what size the bubble gets per 0.3 micrometer of mass. Is the galaxy a giant spacetime bubble ..or more like a tent city?

    We can compare galaxies with slow edge stars to ones with fast to give us a clue to the size.
    If you don't know any of this how can you claim that your ideas are an alternative to dark matter?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    16
    I asked you to provide a better explanation of your dismissal of this evidence against your theory. This is not a better explanation.
    It isn't a dismissal, it is embraced information. I want quantum weirdness events to be able to interact with certain spacetime sized objects so that we can control it.

    I asked you to provide examples of the observations that would validate your statements. Could you please do so in considerably more detail than this?
    Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser: Shows us the entire path of the particle is known before it starts moving. Entangled particles hold the same state while in flight. When the first particle hits it's final panel in a shortened path, it knows if its entangled brother will ever be physical or not in flight. Aka, it knows if spacetime got involved.

    Which Way Quantum Eraser: Something very interesting happens when you cause two state changes in the path of a particle before it hits a final panel. If the quantum field knows two state changes are going to occur, it goes back to being unreal quantum waves. When you see fringes appear on the final panel, it is because the quantum waves ignored the polarizers at the slits and the additional polarizer as unreal quantum waves. Quantum waves are passing though physical spacetime objects.

    Matter Waves do not decay: https://phys.org/news/2017-10-violat...w-quantum.html

    If you don't know any of this how can you claim that your ideas are an alternative to dark matter?
    I don't know what size bubble spacetime gets per amount of matter ..true. But, I know something like it is occurring. We already see objects is space that are way older than they should be. And the notion that Dark Matter is a particle is ridiculous to begin with.
    Last edited by pittsburghjoe; 2019-Dec-27 at 05:13 PM.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    16
    The uncertainty principle only applies when the quantum field in involved. Spacetime doesn't cause it ..it cures it.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,231
    OK, I guess I'm out then. All you are doing is telling stories about what you think is 'really' happening in established experiments. Your ideas don't seem to have any predictive power, seem to be based on a mix of bad numerology with acausal anthropomorphisms and are mostly incoherent. I've asked for clarifications several times and you cannot provide them. You've really failed to make any kind of case that this mishmash of ideas is worth considering.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    16
    Did I need to explain how to setup an observed particle trying to tunnel?

    So sorry I don't have the lab equipment for this new branch of science.

    Something tells me you never planned on agreeing with anything I had to say anyways.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,759
    Quote Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
    So sorry I don't have the lab equipment for this new branch of science.

    Something tells me you never planned on agreeing with anything I had to say anyways.
    If you can't defend what you're saying, you shouldn't expect agreement. Very simple. Mainstream science becomes mainstream by surviving challenges and making verifiable -- and verified -- predictions. Expecting anyone to discard well-supported theories just on your say-so is absurd. That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

    It is telling that any one of the paragraphs from your second post could be replaced by the equally meaningful "Blorgoshnorg: Quantum ooga-booga duality analog digital binary bloopadoop. Shnorgosity (My addition): In five dimensions. 0.3. Banana, banana."

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    16
    Right, so the guy with an answer for Dark Matter isn't worth listening to, cool.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,994
    Quote Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
    Something tells me you never planned on agreeing with anything I had to say anyways.
    You were warned in post #10 not to make things personal or question other members' motives. Please don't do it again.

    Quote Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
    Right, so the guy with an answer for Dark Matter isn't worth listening to, cool.
    This isn't the place for idle speculation, what-ifs, or throwing things against the wall to see what sticks. The rules you were advised to read require proponents to present their claims, along with any evidence and mathematics they may have and answer questions about it. If you can't get on with it according to those terms, this thread will be closed.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    16
    I don't like being dismissed when I couldn't have made my argument any clearer. I know when I'm being attacked and can't pretend it isn't happening. This idea is everything I have been working towards for years.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    16
    Can we please talk about the possibility of spacetime being everywhere ..but not enacted everywhere?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,994
    This thread is closed pending moderator discussion.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •