tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post9191552533744977228..comments2024-03-21T09:01:08.175-07:00Comments on Physics with an edge: New Evidence at High RedshiftMike McCullochhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-86424240538937482092017-04-14T05:11:35.589-07:002017-04-14T05:11:35.589-07:00Actually I do understand the cold dark matter just...Actually I do understand the cold dark matter just as an result of many overlapping Rindler spaces (shielding cones of hyperdimensional and superluminal holographic radiation) of multiple bodies. Your proposal would work, if the Rindler cones would propagate luminaly - but this is just what can be doubted in MiHsC model.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-81892197482267512262017-04-12T18:23:21.531-07:002017-04-12T18:23:21.531-07:00Actually, I don't think you do understand MiHs...Actually, I don't think you do understand MiHsC and the implications of horizons at various scales and the details of such system topologies. <br /><br />Your word salad doesn't disclose your idea or meaning at all like you think it does. And anonymous reference to your own theory doesn't either. However, I think you are at least gesturing towards the truth of (the) matter.<br /><br />Consider two tightly coorbiting particles. Their Rindler spaces are thus tight overlapping cones. Another particle could approach the pair yet never interact with the physically closer of the two because it is beyond the horizon edge for that particle. This type of close orbit sheltering is a powerful concept with big implications.<br /><br />If there is really overlap in your ideas and horizons, you will find it there.<br /><br />Analytic Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14307179997233629815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-20558642993323177272017-04-12T14:47:11.758-07:002017-04-12T14:47:11.758-07:00Actually I think I can understand the MiHsC better...Actually I think I can understand the MiHsC better than McCulloch himself in this moment, because I can also see the limits of this theory (and also the ways, in which it can be substituted with another mainstream model which McCulloch denies obstinately in apparent fear from competition). <br /><br />From certain perspective all massive particles are product of interference of some longtitudinal and transverse waves dancing at place, the dark matter particles aren't an exception. What else are the solitons and vortex rings, than the some special anyon particles (they can collide and bounce), which share their properties with waves (they cannot stop their motion at place) These objects (colloquially called scalar waves at the case of dark matter) can move collectively and / or by their very own the more, they more atemporal and massive they get. <br /><br />My own dark matter theory gets even more non local than the MiHsC theory, once it deals with cold dark matter - but it also admits local cohesive effects of scalar waves, once it deals with hot dark matter. These components of dark matter are in dynamic equilibrium like the water droplets are in equilibrium with underwater turbulence and sound waves inside the Tibetian bowl filled with water.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-36049204885722015752017-04-12T08:16:33.222-07:002017-04-12T08:16:33.222-07:00Zephir,
Will all due respect, youy don't unde...Zephir,<br /><br />Will all due respect, youy don't understand MiHsC, there is simply not dark matter, and neither matter at all, all are just relations of distances and node points in Unruh low frequency radiation. Thet define the distribution of movement and inertia. Please, don`t insist in recovering the "matter" paradigm and advance yourself in a Machian distribution and non local theories.<br /><br />I recomend reading of Lee Smolin article cited in this same post.<br /><br />Happy easter to all,Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00601265849093294827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-31413382474579211412017-04-12T06:55:33.631-07:002017-04-12T06:55:33.631-07:00Your ignorance of Hc parameter of MOND theory is a...Your ignorance of Hc parameter of MOND theory is also kind of mainstream physics ignorance, as you're believing, that this theory operates with ad hoced parameters only. But this is not true for at least last ten years already. These theories all evolve with time and MOND theory is not an exception.<br /><br />Entropic gravity is also quite old stuff that goes back at least to research on black hole thermodynamics by Bekenstein and Hawking in the mid-1970s and holography from mid 90's. It just gained popularity in connection with recent failure of SUSY at LHC and WIMPs models at detectors. Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-29857815232358029082017-04-12T06:41:24.062-07:002017-04-12T06:41:24.062-07:00My posts are all perfect - just some are so advanc...My posts are all perfect - just some are so advanced, that you cannot understand them, because you're trapped in your mindset in similar way, like the mainstream physicists adhere on their own theories. <br /><br />So once again: which geometric distribution of dark matter your or MOND theory predicts? It's given by their formula, which contains parameter like the radius or distance from massive objects - as such they cannot predict directional distribution of dark matter, like the dark matter filaments between galaxies.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-89436834862687692242017-04-12T05:42:18.490-07:002017-04-12T05:42:18.490-07:00Zephir: Some of your comments are good, but some I...Zephir: Some of your comments are good, but some I do not agree with at all. For example you say 'there exist lighter forms of dark matter'. There is no direct evidence for that. Sure, there are filaments but explaining them by making a falsified hypothesis (dark matter) even more complex is a classic mistake made repeatedly in every epoch of history. It could be an effect of MiHsC, but I will not feign confidence until I can predict their size (without an adjustable parameter). That is the right attitude, and that is the difference between MiHsC and the other theories.<br /><br />About your second comment. I am not ignorant of the other theories, and I like MoND as being an early clue to MiHsC, but I do not believe them because they do not agree with all the data DESPITE all having adjustable parameters. Therefore, they are wrong. Also, EG is not an older hypothesis, it was first published 3 years after MiHsC.Mike McCullochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-35003602292291169032017-04-12T02:40:05.434-07:002017-04-12T02:40:05.434-07:00@Mike: The dark matter represents quasiparticles o...@Mike: The dark matter represents quasiparticles of vacuum, i.e. the vacuum fluctuations which are on the verge of matter and radiation behavior (anapoles, anyons). Like I've said, the MOND/MOD/MiHsC/TeVeS/STVG, etc. theories describe only one component of dark matter and only subset of this component behavior. There exists lighter forms of dark matter, which form filaments and which don't fit the spherical symmetry of MOND/MiHsC - and also heavier, which are more close to massive particles, than all these theories expect. <br /><br />I noticed, that you're fighting with ignorance of mainstream physics community often - but such a critique considers, you will not behave like ignorant yourself both with respect to older theories (Milgrom, holography, entropic gravity) - both these future ones (Zephir). Of course MiHsC theory is yours and the final strategy is solely up to you, but you should count with consequences.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-46623109153347473462017-04-11T08:04:58.244-07:002017-04-11T08:04:58.244-07:00Unknown/David: I agree with you. Zephir's desi...Unknown/David: I agree with you. Zephir's desire to name 'whatever is the cause of galaxy rotation' to be 'dark matter' is absolutely wrong, and misleading. I'm sure dark matter-ists would love it since they could claim to be right, even when proven to be wrong, but in science physical objects come before words, and dark matter means 'matter is there that we can't see'. Quantised inertia is the opposite: matter that we can see is not completely there. You could call it 'light matter' I suppose, in the sense of weight.Mike McCullochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-32512677856346644962017-04-10T22:29:16.431-07:002017-04-10T22:29:16.431-07:00redefining 'dark matter' to mean 'what...redefining 'dark matter' to mean 'whatever it takes to account for the observations' instead of the traditional 'physical matter that we can't see' means that you can call anything 'dark matter'<br /><br />it undermines all your statements to make this redefinition.<br /><br />David LangUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12084309137541367977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-68511342262261384402017-04-08T01:56:52.504-07:002017-04-08T01:56:52.504-07:00reacher = richerreacher = richerZephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-18086925286046364352017-04-08T01:47:51.158-07:002017-04-08T01:47:51.158-07:00@Unknown: we are talking here about dark matter li...@Unknown: we are talking here about dark matter like about colloquial denomination of deviations from classical relativity and Newtonian physics. In wider context every space-time curvature can be considered as a matter https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125645-800-you-are-made-of-space-time<br /><br />For example in dense aether model the gravitational lens is additional matter surrounding the massive body like the atmosphere and it exhibits the surface tension, which has mechanical properties and which collects another bubbles of space-time, i.e. the dark matter particles. The actual behavior of dark matter is also much reacher, than the MiHsC/MOND theories describe, it for example not only makes large objects more cohesive, but also small objects more dynamic (hotter) and so on.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-17189717302340764052017-04-07T16:22:27.329-07:002017-04-07T16:22:27.329-07:00@zephir
you keep talking about dark matter, but m...@zephir<br /><br />you keep talking about dark matter, but miss that the theory being talked bout here does not use dark matter, it assumes there is zero (or near zero) dark matter.<br /><br />you are missing that the hey to Mike's theory is the math that predicts the behavior, the explanations of why the formula works is far less important than the fact that it does (and that it does without requiring a 'magic number' being used)<br /><br />David Lang (aka unknown above :-)<br /><br />P.S. your concern for Mike's legacy is noted, but I'm pretty sure that he's not in this for his legacy, but rather because he spotted something that he thinks works better than what's currently used. Your "Concern Trolling" about how mike should abandon his positions so that he will be accepted more are not likely to help.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12084309137541367977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-66481493007339061412017-04-07T15:30:40.226-07:002017-04-07T15:30:40.226-07:00It's true, that Milgrom didn't realize thi...It's true, that Milgrom didn't realize this simple connection from the very beginning of his theory - but your understanding of the actual role of "Unruh" radiation in your own model is apparently a subject of evolution too.. ;-) The ideas simply develop and gradually improve - it's natural and logical. Anyway, both MOND, both MiHsC are conceptually similar and they apply to warm dark matter only: the cold dark matter filaments or particle-like hot dark matter with cohesive effects are still waiting for their coherent description. If you want to get it, you should read what I already wrote about it. <br /><br />Now you have basically three options, where to go. First, you can keep your original maverick line of reasoning and try to find as many empirical evidence for your theory, as you can get. IMO you're good in it and the predictive power of your warm dark matter model isn't still exhausted. Second, you can jump to the MOND and holography bandwagon and to prove, how and why these models are equivalent to your model and to merge with mainstream in this way. Or finally you can start to think, how to develop more general model of dark matter, which would make you more progressive and cited by future generations - but also even more distant from mainstream, than by now.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-27329275733513830532017-04-07T14:36:23.229-07:002017-04-07T14:36:23.229-07:00/* Hand-waving after the 'tuning' that a0 .../* Hand-waving after the 'tuning' that a0 is close to cH is not enough */<br /><br />Once you believe in expanding universe model, then it's quite easy to imagine, that this expansion would lead into deceleration term a0 = cH, once you will travel at large distances like the Pioneer spaceprobe. During your travel the Universe and distance between bodies will expand a bit, which would slow-down your travel a bit. Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-14716234689595043192017-04-07T14:20:58.922-07:002017-04-07T14:20:58.922-07:00/* Hand-waving after the 'tuning' that a0 .../* Hand-waving after the 'tuning' that a0 is close to cH is not enough */<br /><br />It's derived from cold dark matter theory. Anyway, the mainstream physics doesn't care very much, how its derivation actually work, once they work and they're supported with other theories. <br /><br />https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.7483<br />https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0107284<br />https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.06110 <br /><br />The inherent property of hyperdimensional phenomena like the dark matter is, they can be described from multiple equally relevant low-dimensional perspectives / projections at the same moment. In such case the physical community may not support the most straightforward explanation - but this one, which compromises the least number of existing explanations and theories. In this extent the physical theories condense between facts on principles of Bayesian logic, like the dark matter filaments between galaxies (analogy of facts). The MOND/MiHsC theories cannot account to this mechanism yet, as they lead into spherically symmetric solutions of dark matter around massive bodies - i.e. not filaments.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-17652808008118265712017-04-07T13:02:35.145-07:002017-04-07T13:02:35.145-07:00Zephir: As you know, the value of a0 is not set in...Zephir: As you know, the value of a0 is not set in MoND from a theory. It is fitted empirically from lots of galaxy rotation data. It is arbitrary in MoND in the sense that there is no 'reason' given for its value. Hand-waving after the 'tuning' that a0 is close to cH is not enough.<br /><br />MiHsC gives a physical reason that predicts a0 exactly. So MiHsC is above the level of theories like Newtonian gravity that need an arbitrary constant, G, and is at the level of special relativity that needs nothing arbitrary and only observables like c.Mike McCullochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-40162621448297605652017-04-07T04:57:28.724-07:002017-04-07T04:57:28.724-07:00@Unknown: Milgrom doesn't use arbitrary consta...@Unknown: Milgrom doesn't use arbitrary constants in his theory. What is arbitrary on a0 = cH_0 ~ 10^{-8} cm s^{-2} product?Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-10439680888590158792017-04-07T03:59:30.346-07:002017-04-07T03:59:30.346-07:00Unknown: That is right, and well said. I've ma...Unknown: That is right, and well said. I've made this point many times. If they have to use a fudge factor (a0) then they don't have MiHsC, which predicts a0 and also how it changes when the Cosmicscale changes (as in the emdrive, or galaxies at different redshift). As far as I can see, no one in the mainstream has yet understood MiHsC.Mike McCullochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-2131642399711873482017-04-06T18:39:03.992-07:002017-04-06T18:39:03.992-07:00@zephir, there is a significant difference between...@zephir, there is a significant difference between having an arbitrary constant (which is set to different values for different galaxies IIRC) and having a formula consisting entirely of externally defined values that applies to more and more 'unusual' situations.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12084309137541367977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-19464274823667488542017-04-06T15:54:15.766-07:002017-04-06T15:54:15.766-07:00Even worse for Mike is, van Putten is using hologr...Even worse for Mike is, van Putten is using holography in his reasoning of Rindler horizon, which currently represents the bandwagon of all abandoned string theorists (from Verlinde to Maldacena), who are just seeking the satisfaction after failure of their theories at LHC and underground WIMPs detectors. The problem is, once you apply the projective geometry of 5D holography and Milgrom's Hc factor, then you wouldn't need to use the MiHsC at all for generation the very similar phenomenological predictions. Instead of it, you will get the warm support of most assertive portion of theoretical physical community. Because the wide portfolio of McCulloch's predictions is just what all these guys need most desperately in a given moment. Now they can derive them in their own way one after another.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-26271214485835616462017-04-06T15:27:55.429-07:002017-04-06T15:27:55.429-07:00BTW Whereas the omission of citation by Smolin cou...BTW Whereas the omission of citation by Smolin could be still understood by different perspective of thinking, the <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aa5da9" rel="nofollow">above example</a> looks like way more serious case of plagiarism for Mike - as it utilizes his very logic, but it cites the MOND instead of MiHsC theory. Now McCulloch will face the hard reality, that with respect to numeric predictions his MiHsC theory gets very close to MOND theory, which is forty years old and as such much better established in physics. After all, how exactly the Milgrom's scale of acceleration ${a}_{0}=({cH}/2\pi )\sqrt{1-q}$ differs from MiHsC's one? I think, just by numeric factor.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-56112667626776889932017-04-06T15:18:40.894-07:002017-04-06T15:18:40.894-07:00/* It must be something in the concept ether that .../* It must be something in the concept ether that people are thinking independently. */<br /><br />And it actually is: in dense aether model this behavior has its analogy in behavior of black holes (remnants of visible matter) and the dark matter (progenitor of visible matter). The black represent the past of Universe and they tend to evaporate soon or later. They remain cohesive, being formed with particles of positive space-time curvature. Instead of it, the particles of opposite space-time curvature are systematically expelled from them. <br /><br />Dark matter particles (scalar waves, magnetic turbulences of vacuum) behave like the sparse bubbles of space-time and they're repelling mutually at distance, thus remaining in diaspora. Instead of it, they're attracted to gravity field of existing observable matter, thus forming dark matter halo around massive galaxies and stars, which though remains separated at distance. The experts in alternative physics behave similarly - they're expelled from mainstream and they're working in diaspora, which fighting each other. This effect indeed slows down cooperation and progress, which has particularly tragical consequences for research of cold fusion and overunity technologies.<br /><br />Our Mike McCulloch isn't very different in this matter, as he has a tendency to delimit himself against MOND/MOD and holographic models, despite his numeric/geometric model looks quite close to them. I presume it has very much to do with natural human competitiveness or even jealousy. The scientific people aren't very different in this respect: they cooperate only if they can get more profit from it.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-61020190412449342132017-04-06T14:57:15.985-07:002017-04-06T14:57:15.985-07:00Hi Mike,
Another person using your concepts...
ht...Hi Mike,<br />Another person using your concepts...<br /><br />http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aa5da9<br /><br />...but without mentioning your work in the abstract. <br /><br />It must be something in the concept ether that people are thinking independently.qraalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13436948899560519608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-86946325371971242972017-04-06T06:22:27.344-07:002017-04-06T06:22:27.344-07:00OK, so you deserve the adding to this list. Anyway...OK, so you deserve the <a href="https://majesticforest.wordpress.com/2014/08/15/papers-that-triumphed-over-their-rejections" rel="nofollow">adding to this list</a>. Anyway, I can still see conflict of the galactic rotation evolution with steady state Universe. The seeming change of dark matter concentration / density doesn't represent a problem for it - but it shouldn't change the dynamic behavior of galaxies. Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.com