FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle
"The Matter of "Dark Matter 4"
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [1 Post] View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
Lij
science forum beginner


Joined: 03 Jul 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 3:43 pm    Post subject: "The Matter of "Dark Matter 4" Reply with quote

"The Matter of "Dark Matter"

There have been many postings about the mysterious "Dark Matter" which
is alleged to constitute 90 to 95% of the mass(energy) content of the
Universe. The presence of this "Dark Matter" is indicated by the observed
gravitational behavior of galaxies and clusters of galaxies. A large effort
is apparently underway to detect this "Dark Matter" and to determine its
nature. In all of the discussions there seems to be little attention to the
3 - 3.5 degree K background radiation known for decades to be present. If
one examined the energy represented by this radiation, he finds that it is
10 to 20 times the energy represented by the mass of conventional matter.
Obviously, however, there is no need to pay attention to this radiation
because, as everyone knows, electromagnetic radiation does not possess
inertial or gravitational mass.

Since everyone "knows" that electromagnetic radiation does not possess
inertial or gravitational mass, it behooves us to examine the validity of
that belief. It has long been known that electromagnetic radiation
transports momentum as witnessed by the pressure of Solar radiation which
causes comets to have "tails". In addition, mainstream physicists have
discussed the feasibility of using "light sails" for the propulsion of long
distance space ships. Mainstream physics tells us that the momentum
transported by a photon is identical to the momentum which would be
transported by a material particle of the same total energy (rest mass plus
kinetic energy). - I know that the rest mass of a material particle
traveling at the velocity of light must be zero. But lets not quibble,
divide that zero by the zero represented by the Lorentz Transformation for
mass and the inertial mass of the material particle can have any value
between the limits of +/- zero. Since momentum is equal to the product of
inertial mass and velocity, and the momentum of a photon is given by its
energy divided by the velocity of light, then dividing the equation which
provides the momentum of a photon by C shows that the photon behaves as if
its inertial mass were equal to its energy divided by the square of the
velocity of light. Maybe photons do not possess inertial mass in spite of
observation, but as far as the writer is concerned, if it looks like a duck,
walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, he is willing to accept that it
is a duck. The inertial mass of photons meet this test and if the current
state of physical knowledge teaches otherwise it is time for physicists to
rethink the subject.

Since photons act as if they possess inertial mass traveling at the
velocity of light, the background radiation of space must exert a pressure
which acting to cause the Universe to attempt to expand. Let us examine
whether those same photons possess a gravitational mass. This is best done
by considering an ideal thought experiment along the lines of those used by
Dr. Einstein. Consider a cold gravitational massive planet in intergalactic
space (to eliminate spurious disturbances). Attached to opposite sides of
this planet are columns each of which support an ideal retro reflector
having 100% efficiency. A beam of photons is sent from one of the
retroreflectors, is bent by the planet's gravitational field as required by
General Relativity, and strikes the retroreflector on the other side of the
planet. Because these are ideal retroreflectors, the photons are constrained
to continuously travel bask and forth past the planets surface. It is a
simple calculation (not involving relativity) to show that as a result of
the gravitational "refraction" of the photon's path the process will cause a
net force to be exerted on the retroreflectors in a direction which is
"down" at the point where the photons pass the surface. If we are to accept
that the "Laws of Conservation of Energy and Momentum" are valid, then there
must be an upward pull on the planet equal to the downward push on the
retroreflectors. If these two forces are not equal, the entire system could
be used as a "space tug" in violation of Newton's Second Law and/or a source
of limitless energy in violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics. The
thought experiment is diagrammed in http://einsteinhoax.com/gf421.gif. Its
validity does not depend upon relativistic considerations. This thought
experiment shows that, if light is observed to be "refracted" by a
gravitational field, that "refraction" must result not from the 'curvature"
of space but from a gravitational force. The magnitude of that force must
result from the photons having a "gravitational mass" equal to twice their
inertial mass. For a more detained discussion see paragraphs 8.8 and 8.9 of
http://users.isp.com/retic/hoax.htm.

When one combines the effects of the gravitational and inertial
"masses" the photons which are observed to propagate through our Universe
one finds that the inertial mass tends to act as a gas to expand the
Universe while the gravitational mass acts like any other gravitational mass
and acts to contract the Universe. The size of the Universe at any one time
is deteumined primarily by the balance between these two effects. Once the
"big bang" state had been reached, the pressure of photons acted to produce
the observed expansion which will go on forever. All of these conclusions
are derived and discussed in http://einsteinhoax.com/index.htm.

The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm/ (1997);
http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm (1987); and
http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS
TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT
MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY
VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS
ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD
CLASS STATUS.

All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.

Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

E-mail:- einsteinhoax@isp.com. If you wish a reply, be sure that your
mail reception is not blocked.

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [1 Post] View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sat Jun 24, 2017 3:42 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Emergence of Lorentz invariance in condensed matter app02drm Relativity 0 Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:10 am
No new posts Emergence of Lorentz invariance in condensed matter app02drm Research 1 Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:52 am
No new posts I have found that a looooooooooot of astronomers figured ... gb6724 New Theories 5 Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:37 am
No new posts How the public could understand dark energy? gb6724 New Theories 10 Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:55 pm
No new posts The phrase 'dark matter' stephen@nomail.com Relativity 36 Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:57 am

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0204s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0036s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]