Good day,
It's was a very noisy sunrise this morning; there were two large garbage truck emptying the large metal dumpsters, one of which have seemed to have its back-up beeper stuck on, and then there was the guy with the leaf-blower across the street. The clouds were building for the coming rain; yes it does rain in Los Angeles California. It had rained a couple of days ago, not much, disappointingly so, a very little drizzle for an hour and then some small smattering for an hour. Considering the rain from last year which was substantial and produced a lot of growth and without adequate rain this year means it's dying off leaving considerable brush for fires. I've seen the fires here before and the smoke from distant fires.
What does any of that have to do with 'Dark Matter'? Oh, I left out city smog, but I did say that I'm in Los Angeles... I was thinking of what has been termed 'Dark Matter' when the predawn light brought out the majesty of the cloud formations moving in, but I won't have been thinking about that if an acquaintance of mine hadn't asked me about what I thought of 'Dark Matter' (DM) and 'Dark Energy' (DE) the day before.
DM and DE are ideas that came up after I had left the field and when I had heard of it the brief explanation I got was interesting, I was hoping that they finally got a glimpse of something outside the Big Bang Theory delusion. However when I started to do some digging around and researching what had been written on the phenomena I was really disappointed to find the same twisted fantasy thinking. Now they have something that can not be seen and rationalize their inability to substantiate the failings of the Big Bang Theory. Totally insane! Really inane, pathetic, poor souls, unable to admit they are wrong...
Looking at Space as possessing 4 spatial dimensions and Matter as being of 3 spatial dimensions and the extrapolations of these is observable by Gravity's Unified Field effects (any theory with this as a basis makes the idea of Dark Matter and Dark energy unnecessary). However I don't even have to get into any of that because of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, just ask him, oh he's dead, that doesn't mean what he had to contribute, even though I'll take it as theory and expand on it, should be ignored.. And even more basic than that, when there are a sufficient number of unknowns there are certain unsolvable factors. It is even worst when you use a wrong equation to calculate a fundamental quantity causing all solved equations to be wrong.
Basically all regions between large bodies are composed of Space and matter, then subsequently various aspects of Gravity's Unified Field effects. Just ask anyone who uses or has used a radio-telescope. Any Astronomer including Astrophysicists would tell you that beyond planetary atmospheres and other planetary atmospheres it is not a complete vacuum. The "vacuum of space" although far more vacant than what we can produce here on Earth still has particles distributed throughout it. Another idea that is relevant is that a star is observable, if unobscured, from every vantage, every degree, minute, and ever so smaller, or larger.
This is the place I get into a little of the problems with the World's Scientific Communities opinions of Quantum Mechanics. Again, the profound differences between BBT and fourth spatial dimension Space lends to very different understandings of what Quantum Mechanics is. Now to get back to the discussion with the layman acquaintance the other day; he had some basic questions about DM, DE, and the phenomena of scientists claiming to have images of a single particle simultaneously in different places. And curiously the general explanation answers all three misconceptions.
The two observable examples I pointed out to him were: 1) although the air here is not visible, if you go up to into the mountains and look back down, for instance to the valley, or even downtown LA you'll see a layer of smog. 2) If you've ever been fishing and looking into a brook and see a fish, the fish is not where you see it, and if there is a significant wave pattern to the surface of the brook, then one fish in the brook can be two or more fish. Yeah, an optical illusion!
'Nuff said?
Peace,
Stephen
No comments:
Post a Comment