The Naked Scientists
Toggle navigation
Login
Register
Podcasts
The Naked Scientists
eLife
Naked Genetics
Naked Astronomy
In short
Naked Neuroscience
Ask! The Naked Scientists
Question of the Week
Archive
Video
SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
Articles
Science News
Features
Interviews
Answers to Science Questions
Get Naked
Donate
Do an Experiment
Science Forum
Ask a Question
About
Meet the team
Our Sponsors
Site Map
Contact us
User menu
Login
Register
Search
Home
Help
Search
Tags
Member Map
Recent Topics
Login
Register
Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side
New Theories
Isn’t dark energy & mass explained by power line theory & energy conservation?
« previous
next »
Print
Pages:
1
[
2
]
Go Down
Isn’t dark energy & mass explained by power line theory & energy conservation?
24 Replies
9050 Views
7 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
AlanM
(OP)
Zahra, Alan, Ruby - The ZAR's Southernmost Naked Newbies
Jr. Member
28
Activity:
0%
Naked Science Forum ZAR's Southernmost Newbie
Re: Isn’t dark energy & mass explained by power line theory & energy conservation?
«
Reply #20 on:
17/09/2018 09:14:40 »
2018 July 17 The Executive Summary - as a reward for those, if any, who have reached this conclusion before. (Probably only Stephen Hawking?)
Light speed isn't infinite because electromagnetic radiation isn't massless, and empty space isn't empty anymore.
Well, there was of course no primordial vacuum to start with, because the extension of space only began when Fred Hoyle's theory said that atoms (or, to use Murray Gell-Mann's language instead, quarks and anti-quarks) just appeared (and keep appearing) out of the infinite potential energy bank we call nothing.
It was the Grand Observer Designate's first throw of his dice, if you like that way of putting it. The Grand Observer(or is that Observers?) Designate would have had to be the first and only ever time traveller(s), who left home one day in a relative way, and arrived at the centre of our universes the previous night, so that he (or they?) could see to the creation of light. Those (continually appearing) quarks and their antiquarks all spat (spit) out their net energy cancelling charges, the chaperones that were (are) inhibiting their needs to get together. Those ejected chaperones we now call electrons and positrons each flew (fly) into their (very) high temperature rage(es), each of them buzzing around their quark-antiquark twosomes and threesomes that condensed (are always condensing) out of the quark vapour to form protons, and neutrons. In this manner, clouds of hydrogen were (are) created, and once the single protons began (begin) getting together, the rest is pure chemistry and all sorts of things, including life, can emerge in time. I hope pure is an acceptable term for chemistry.
As Stephen Hawking wagered, and was persuaded (or was he?) that he had lost, there is no need for a Higgs Boson. He could have added that there is no need for any bosons, or any other theoretical particles, if one tells it all as it is. Physics is the science of the real. Mathematics has simply too much of the imaginary in it for most people, and chemistry has almost always been totally incomprehensible to just about everyone. Like the lives chemistry makes possible.
So Einstein was right, as was his Noble prize. He deserved one, whatever aspect of his work (fun?) one looks at. There is no more mystery about the missing 1/2 in energy being mass times light speed squared. The sum of the dark stuff and the light stuff is always zero, which simply means they are the equals of each other, but of the opposite hand. Yin and Yang, the Wrong handed and the right handed. In spin, in polarity, in whatever energy form you can think of, it has always been constrained by the law of the conservation of energy. Everything must always balance, all the time, everywhere.
Hoyle was also right. Thingies like loops and dots and stringies do arrive out of nowhere. This they did originally, and will continue to do, ad infinitum. Hoyle deserved a Nobel Prize for many different contributions to the Theory of Everything.
Feynman was right. Positrons (anti-electrons) are like electrons travelling backwards in time. There is nothing wrong about normalising infinities. It is, though, not right to suppress any zeros. Climatologists and weathermen take note.
Stick to degrees Kelvin, as true scientists should.
The mass isn't missing at all, we simply can not see the dark side. How can you see any light light that is not coming towards the two little black holes in your eyes? A look at the night sky should show you how much dark light there actually is. Its adds up to a massive majority from our point of view. But if you choose the darkest unlit sky, it begins to turn to silver, and you will begin to appreciate how we look to any seers from the dark side.
And black holes are not totally black. They can gleam and have a glint. The glint is silver too.
Nil desperandum. It really is all there. There's no need to despair.
©Alan S M and Zahra, Seaforth, September 2018
Logged
Alan M
AlanM
(OP)
Zahra, Alan, Ruby - The ZAR's Southernmost Naked Newbies
Jr. Member
28
Activity:
0%
Naked Science Forum ZAR's Southernmost Newbie
Re: Isn’t dark energy & mass explained by power line theory & energy conservation?
«
Reply #21 on:
16/01/2019 05:08:00 »
From: alan.mitchell@telkomsa.net
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 6:27 AM
To: Mary Watts ; Anthony Vander Willigen ; Karen vander Willigen
Cc: Chris Smith Naked Scientists ; Naked Science Forum
Subject: Great News Mary, and Thanks so Much for Stephen H's FINAL book ! The Bored Chemist at Naked Scientists Forum Topic 71376 can start reading again !
Hi Mary, Karen, & Antony & all the Mitchell Clan
Last night I got to Stephen Hawking's Final Book, Chapter One.
It made wonderful reading. Stephen deals explicitly with what I have been trying to say for more than a year now in my letters to Zahra in my posts on the Naked Scientists web-site forum topic 71376.
What more is there to say?
It is a Happy Happy Day !
Cheers
Alan M
From: alan.mitchell@telkomsa.net
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 7:52 AM
To: Chris Smith Naked Scientists
Cc: Naked Science Forum ; 567 Cape Talk Radio
Subject: Heres A Little Topic (Forum Topic 71376) to Kick the New Year Off With?
Morning Chris and All at Naked Scientists
And Best Wishes to all of you for a Happy 2019 and the years thereafter from Sunny Seaforth, Simon's Town.
It might be an idea to have another look at where your Naked Science Forum Topic 71376 has gone so far?
Cape Talk/702 might enjoy it today or sometime soon?
Attached for information.
Sincerely,
Alan M
+27 21 786 1671
Logged
Alan M
AlanM
(OP)
Zahra, Alan, Ruby - The ZAR's Southernmost Naked Newbies
Jr. Member
28
Activity:
0%
Naked Science Forum ZAR's Southernmost Newbie
Re: Isn’t dark energy & mass explained by power line theory & energy conservation?
«
Reply #22 on:
20/01/2019 07:46:02 »
2019 1 20
Oops – there I went again. Never put your book down without at least finishing the current chapter. By the time I got to page 114 all order had been restored, and my faith in Stephen’s posthumous publishers was back on track.
All I can add at this stage, is to say that I am doing all I can to tell people in public talks the good news. There is no more mystery, all the dark stuff said to have been missing for so long has been properly accounted for by Stephen’s lucid prose about negative and positive energy and creation. Let Mitchell’s Magical Myth Busting continue at full steam.
© Alan M and Zahra. (Well, it’s plagiarism, really. Or is it?)
2019 1 19
Just a suggestion: Do what Stephen Hawking couldn't. Play with a few spherical magnets, including non-magnetised ball bearings of different sizes, like I and my granddaughter Zahra have. The first thing that might strike you (painfully) on one of your digits is a pair of magnets. This is called the Engineering Approach. It led me to my first conjecture, via the thought that magnetism isn't granular, but divisible into ever-decreasing quanta until we get to the ultimate form that Maxwell calculated all those years ago. Massless magnetism is what we can discern as quarks. We have given quarks six flavours - up/down, charmed/strange/ and top/bottom. One pair of those just means north/south magnetism. Another just means back/wards/forwards relative to time. And the third pair is just clockwise spin/anticlockwise spin.
So
You might connect all that to the thought that nothing curves space more strongly than magnetism. But wait. Consider the mighty electron. Look at an atom of hydrogen. The proton consists of three quarks, two ups and a down (or maybe that should be two downs and an up. It doesn't really matter. One's an antiquark, closely entangled with its quark. there is no more mysterious thing than the ability for the positive charge of the proton to be cancelled by a single electron buzzing around that proton like a bee in a cathedral. The electron can't really fly about fast enough to quite do the job. Its willing assistent, the almost massless something-ino, has to help out. Whether the -ino is a gravitino, a neutrino, or a magnetrino is the question that needs to be decided.
I tend to think that that the -ino has to add a bit more negativity, rather than gravity or positronity to cancel the positivity of the three matter/antimatter quarks. Adding quarkinos is not an answer either, though I'm often wrong about arithmetic, never mind mathematics.
Well, I hope this is helpful.
By the way, the Final Book published on behalf of Stephen rather startled me when I got to Nelson (page 111 in cricketing jargon). The statement that black holes can't emit anything has to be a mistake. Hawking radiation does exist. Quasars and neutron stars are detected by polar gamma rays doing gymnastics in space. Two colliding black holes have been detected because their polar radiation causes ripples in the fabric of space. From our universe to our entangled anti-universe we have anti-radiation and anti-matter streaming through the black hole portal, so looked from inside the black hole (well, it has to be a sphere to be symmetrical with us, doesn't it?) the anti-matter life forms would never say our 'white' hole (no 'racism' intended, it's really just a word that implies 'anti-black' hole).
If you would like to see how all my conjecturing began, try the Naked Science Forum topics 713717 (symmetry there, eh ?) and the new theory the Naked Scientists made it, Topic 71376 (and Many Thanks to them) .
Best Wishes, AlanM (and from Zahra too, of course.)
Report to moderator 105.227.146.87
Alan M
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71317.0
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71367.0
Logged
Alan M
AlanM
(OP)
Zahra, Alan, Ruby - The ZAR's Southernmost Naked Newbies
Jr. Member
28
Activity:
0%
Naked Science Forum ZAR's Southernmost Newbie
Re: Isn’t dark energy & mass explained by power line theory & energy conservation?
«
Reply #23 on:
11/04/2019 07:05:21 »
2019 4 11
Now that we have a photo of the light scattered around (ie 'lensed by') a convenient super-massive black hole, here's today's interpretation for your edification:
Black Holes aren't black. They are perfectly transparent.
Please realise that your eyes are not up to seeing any light that is leaving you. So not only can you see a black hole portal. All the light going into that portal, from your point of view, is 'black' light.
Because the night sky is black too, your eyes CAN ONLY see the TINY fraction of the spectrum, the VISIBLE LIGHT SPECTRUM, emitted by everything around you, DIRECTLY AT YOUR PUPILS.
So, there is NO "MISSING DARK MATTER, OR MISSING DARK ENERGY" at ALL !
As 'they' say, in song: "It's an illusion, IT'S AN ILLUSION !
Cheers
©Alan M, Seaforth
+27 21 786 16 71
Logged
Alan M
AlanM
(OP)
Zahra, Alan, Ruby - The ZAR's Southernmost Naked Newbies
Jr. Member
28
Activity:
0%
Naked Science Forum ZAR's Southernmost Newbie
Re: Isn’t dark energy & mass explained by power line theory & energy conservation?
«
Reply #24 on:
27/04/2019 08:34:14 »
(Not) the Last Word on this topic, surely?
With Ruby and Zahra moving on to bigger things, I think this probably is time to leave this theory of everything to its own devices. It has turned out far, far simpler than I originally thought it might.
All that is needed to make the original conjecture simpler to answer, is to change it very slightly, and make it Alan M’s Assertion: (ie, as Monty Python would have had it: “Cross out ‘contecture’ in pencil, and write ‘assertion’.)
So, the way to phrase the conjecture better, might be:
Dark energy and matter aren’t missing – they are just not there for all to see. This is easily explained by conservation of momentum, and basic optics and electrotechnics. So it has all been done by all whose thoughts and writings appear in the really simple textbooks, from Archimedes through, inter alia, Gallileo, Newton, Einstein , Feynman, and Hawking, to the present, on matters arithmetical, scientific. It has been great making this all clear to the next generation, thanks to inspiration from Ruby and Zahra. I commend their passions for science and the truth.
Stay humble, remember – anything humankind can show, Nature can show better, after all.
Mensdom is miskien net a bietjie te dom, nou en dan.
©Alan M, Ruby, and Zahra
Seaforth, West Sussex, and Hoedspruit
2019-4-27
Logged
Alan M
Print
Pages:
1
[
2
]
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
alanm
/
conjecture
/
missing
/
dark
/
energy
/
mass
/
explained
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...