Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 10 Jul 2010 12:20 On Jul 9, 6:17 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 9, 6:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 5:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 9, 6:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 9, 5:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 9, 5:57 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Edward Green wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 1:04 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > > >> Edward Green wrote: > > > > > > >> >> On Jul 7, 10:06 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > > > >> >>> Yes, I know you claim the CMBR dipole=0 frame is the > > > > > > >> >>> ether frame. But that is not LET. Lorentz obviously had > > > > > > >> >>> no knowledge of the CMBR, and could not possibly have > > > > > > >> >>> put it into his theory. Moreover, while there might be > > > > > > >> >>> some merit to your claim if relative to that frame the > > > > > > >> >>> CMBR was isotropic, it isn't. > > > > > > > >> > Really? That's very interesting. Would you care to elaborate? > > > > > > > >> Wilson and Penzias discovered the CMBR in the 1960s; Lorentz died in > > > > > > >> 1928. > > > > > > > >> The CMBR has a rich and varied multipole structure, as any good reference > > > > > > >> on it will show. There are maps of CMBR temperature in all directions, > > > > > > >> and they have LOTS of structure; ironically, they are invariably > > > > > > >> displayed in the dipole=0 frame (because otherwise the dipole would > > > > > > >> obscure the structure because the dipole is by far the largest multipole > > > > > > >> present). Selecting the frame in which its dipole moment is zero cannot > > > > > > >> cancel all the other multipoles, and thus it is not isotropic in that > > > > > > >> frame. > > > > > > > > Well, that puts you at direct odds with Paul Stowe, who says the > > > > > > > multipoles are "s-l-i-g-h-t", i.e., on the level of 1 part in 100,000 > > > > > > > -- however exactly that is quantified. > > > > > > > Paul Stowe is stupid and does not understand basic observational fact, > > > > > > unfortunately neither personality defect stops him from commenting upon > > > > > > things. > > > > > > > > BTW, what is "doubly special relativity"? > > > > > > > A theory in which both c and h are invariant under Lorentz transformations. > > > > > > Basic observations like the associated dark matter displacement wave a > > > > > moving particle has? > > > > > Nobody cares, Michael P. Cavedon. > > > > Quit whoring for attention. > > > > How does matter and dark matter, both of which consist of mass, occupy > > > the same point in three dimensional space simultaneously? > > > > They don't. > > > So say you. Because you say that it is a Natural Law by Divine > > Revelation that two things with mass cannot occupy the same space. > > This law, of course, did not come from anywhere but that creepy voice > > in your head, which you believe implicitly and which tells you that > > you have Special Insight. > > > Furthermore, you have not read anywhere that matter and dark matter > > occupy the same POINT. Matter is defined as having mass and occupying > > VOLUME, which a point does not have. Secondly, mass is a *property*, > > not a stuff. So matter does not sit at a POINT. And also matter does > > not "consist of" mass; it has the property of mass. So your question > > should read instead: "How does matter and dark matter, both of which > > exhibit the property of mass, occupy the same volume in three > > dimensional space simultaneously?" > > > And the answer to that is, "Easily." > > A mole of nitrogen gas (22.1 liters) does not displace a mole of > > oxygen gas (22.1 liters). They both occupy the same volume together > > (22.1 liters). This is a common phenomenon and you breath a mixture > > that is similar to this. > > When nitrogen gas and oxygen gas both occupy the same volume together > the mass of the volume increases. > > As the Earth moves through dark matter the mass of the Earth is not > continually increasing. If the amount of dark matter changes that the Earth moves through, yes it does. I don't know what measurement you are referring to that says the mass of the volume occupied by the earth is unchanging. > > Your analogy is incorrect. > > The nuclei which is the matter which is the Earth displaces dark > matter. > Dark matter is not at rest when displaced and displaces back. > Displaced dark matter exerts pressure towards the Earth. > Pressure exerted by displaced dark matter towards matter is gravity. > > > > > An electric field can sit in vacuum or it can sit in a material > > substance without displacing anything. Turning on an electric field > > does not increase the volume of any material substance, and it doesn't > > push anything out of the way (which is what "displacement" MEANS). And > > the protons, electrons, and neutrons feel the electric field at the > > very place where they are sitting, which means that they do not push > > the electric field out of the way either. > > > So the next time that creepy little voice in your head tells you these > > Natural Laws by Divine Revelation, I suggest you tell the voice that > > you'd better check a few facts before buying into what it says. > > > > Dark matter is displaced by matter.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 10 Jul 2010 12:22 On Jul 9, 6:17 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 9, 6:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 5:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 9, 6:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 9, 5:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 9, 5:57 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Edward Green wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 1:04 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > > >> Edward Green wrote: > > > > > > >> >> On Jul 7, 10:06 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > > > >> >>> Yes, I know you claim the CMBR dipole=0 frame is the > > > > > > >> >>> ether frame. But that is not LET. Lorentz obviously had > > > > > > >> >>> no knowledge of the CMBR, and could not possibly have > > > > > > >> >>> put it into his theory. Moreover, while there might be > > > > > > >> >>> some merit to your claim if relative to that frame the > > > > > > >> >>> CMBR was isotropic, it isn't. > > > > > > > >> > Really? That's very interesting. Would you care to elaborate? > > > > > > > >> Wilson and Penzias discovered the CMBR in the 1960s; Lorentz died in > > > > > > >> 1928. > > > > > > > >> The CMBR has a rich and varied multipole structure, as any good reference > > > > > > >> on it will show. There are maps of CMBR temperature in all directions, > > > > > > >> and they have LOTS of structure; ironically, they are invariably > > > > > > >> displayed in the dipole=0 frame (because otherwise the dipole would > > > > > > >> obscure the structure because the dipole is by far the largest multipole > > > > > > >> present). Selecting the frame in which its dipole moment is zero cannot > > > > > > >> cancel all the other multipoles, and thus it is not isotropic in that > > > > > > >> frame. > > > > > > > > Well, that puts you at direct odds with Paul Stowe, who says the > > > > > > > multipoles are "s-l-i-g-h-t", i.e., on the level of 1 part in 100,000 > > > > > > > -- however exactly that is quantified. > > > > > > > Paul Stowe is stupid and does not understand basic observational fact, > > > > > > unfortunately neither personality defect stops him from commenting upon > > > > > > things. > > > > > > > > BTW, what is "doubly special relativity"? > > > > > > > A theory in which both c and h are invariant under Lorentz transformations. > > > > > > Basic observations like the associated dark matter displacement wave a > > > > > moving particle has? > > > > > Nobody cares, Michael P. Cavedon. > > > > Quit whoring for attention. > > > > How does matter and dark matter, both of which consist of mass, occupy > > > the same point in three dimensional space simultaneously? > > > > They don't. > > > So say you. Because you say that it is a Natural Law by Divine > > Revelation that two things with mass cannot occupy the same space. > > This law, of course, did not come from anywhere but that creepy voice > > in your head, which you believe implicitly and which tells you that > > you have Special Insight. > > > Furthermore, you have not read anywhere that matter and dark matter > > occupy the same POINT. Matter is defined as having mass and occupying > > VOLUME, which a point does not have. Secondly, mass is a *property*, > > not a stuff. So matter does not sit at a POINT. And also matter does > > not "consist of" mass; it has the property of mass. So your question > > should read instead: "How does matter and dark matter, both of which > > exhibit the property of mass, occupy the same volume in three > > dimensional space simultaneously?" > > > And the answer to that is, "Easily." > > A mole of nitrogen gas (22.1 liters) does not displace a mole of > > oxygen gas (22.1 liters). They both occupy the same volume together > > (22.1 liters). This is a common phenomenon and you breath a mixture > > that is similar to this. > > When nitrogen gas and oxygen gas both occupy the same volume together > the mass of the volume increases. > > As the Earth moves through dark matter the mass of the Earth is not > continually increasing. The problem, you see, is that you are still listening to that creepy voice in your head that is telling you Truths by Divine Revelation, and you're not responding back to the voice that you'd better check the facts first. > > Your analogy is incorrect. > > The nuclei which is the matter which is the Earth displaces dark > matter. > Dark matter is not at rest when displaced and displaces back. > Displaced dark matter exerts pressure towards the Earth. > Pressure exerted by displaced dark matter towards matter is gravity. > > > > > An electric field can sit in vacuum or it can sit in a material > > substance without displacing anything. Turning on an electric field > > does not increase the volume of any material substance, and it doesn't > > push anything out of the way (which is what "displacement" MEANS). And > > the protons, electrons, and neutrons feel the electric field at the > > very place where they are sitting, which means that they do not push > > the electric field out of the way either. > > > So the next time that creepy little voice in your head tells you these > > Natural Laws by Divine Revelation, I suggest you tell the voice that > > you'd better check a few facts before buying into what it says. > > > > Dark matter is displaced by matter.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 10 Jul 2010 12:23 On Jul 9, 6:17 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 9, 6:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 5:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 9, 6:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 9, 5:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 9, 5:57 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Edward Green wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 1:04 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > > >> Edward Green wrote: > > > > > > >> >> On Jul 7, 10:06 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > > > >> >>> Yes, I know you claim the CMBR dipole=0 frame is the > > > > > > >> >>> ether frame. But that is not LET. Lorentz obviously had > > > > > > >> >>> no knowledge of the CMBR, and could not possibly have > > > > > > >> >>> put it into his theory. Moreover, while there might be > > > > > > >> >>> some merit to your claim if relative to that frame the > > > > > > >> >>> CMBR was isotropic, it isn't. > > > > > > > >> > Really? That's very interesting. Would you care to elaborate? > > > > > > > >> Wilson and Penzias discovered the CMBR in the 1960s; Lorentz died in > > > > > > >> 1928. > > > > > > > >> The CMBR has a rich and varied multipole structure, as any good reference > > > > > > >> on it will show. There are maps of CMBR temperature in all directions, > > > > > > >> and they have LOTS of structure; ironically, they are invariably > > > > > > >> displayed in the dipole=0 frame (because otherwise the dipole would > > > > > > >> obscure the structure because the dipole is by far the largest multipole > > > > > > >> present). Selecting the frame in which its dipole moment is zero cannot > > > > > > >> cancel all the other multipoles, and thus it is not isotropic in that > > > > > > >> frame. > > > > > > > > Well, that puts you at direct odds with Paul Stowe, who says the > > > > > > > multipoles are "s-l-i-g-h-t", i.e., on the level of 1 part in 100,000 > > > > > > > -- however exactly that is quantified. > > > > > > > Paul Stowe is stupid and does not understand basic observational fact, > > > > > > unfortunately neither personality defect stops him from commenting upon > > > > > > things. > > > > > > > > BTW, what is "doubly special relativity"? > > > > > > > A theory in which both c and h are invariant under Lorentz transformations. > > > > > > Basic observations like the associated dark matter displacement wave a > > > > > moving particle has? > > > > > Nobody cares, Michael P. Cavedon. > > > > Quit whoring for attention. > > > > How does matter and dark matter, both of which consist of mass, occupy > > > the same point in three dimensional space simultaneously? > > > > They don't. > > > So say you. Because you say that it is a Natural Law by Divine > > Revelation that two things with mass cannot occupy the same space. > > This law, of course, did not come from anywhere but that creepy voice > > in your head, which you believe implicitly and which tells you that > > you have Special Insight. > > > Furthermore, you have not read anywhere that matter and dark matter > > occupy the same POINT. Matter is defined as having mass and occupying > > VOLUME, which a point does not have. Secondly, mass is a *property*, > > not a stuff. So matter does not sit at a POINT. And also matter does > > not "consist of" mass; it has the property of mass. So your question > > should read instead: "How does matter and dark matter, both of which > > exhibit the property of mass, occupy the same volume in three > > dimensional space simultaneously?" > > > And the answer to that is, "Easily." > > A mole of nitrogen gas (22.1 liters) does not displace a mole of > > oxygen gas (22.1 liters). They both occupy the same volume together > > (22.1 liters). This is a common phenomenon and you breath a mixture > > that is similar to this. > > When nitrogen gas and oxygen gas both occupy the same volume together > the mass of the volume increases. Yes, and note that there IS NO DISPLACEMENT, counter to your claim two volumes of matter cannot occupy the same space without there being displacement. Back to the drawing board for you. > > As the Earth moves through dark matter the mass of the Earth is not > continually increasing. > > Your analogy is incorrect. > > The nuclei which is the matter which is the Earth displaces dark > matter. > Dark matter is not at rest when displaced and displaces back. > Displaced dark matter exerts pressure towards the Earth. > Pressure exerted by displaced dark matter towards matter is gravity. > > > > > An electric field can sit in vacuum or it can sit in a material > > substance without displacing anything. Turning on an electric field > > does not increase the volume of any material substance, and it doesn't > > push anything out of the way (which is what "displacement" MEANS). And > > the protons, electrons, and neutrons feel the electric field at the > > very place where they are sitting, which means that they do not push > > the electric field out of the way either. > > > So the next time that creepy little voice in your head tells you these > > Natural Laws by Divine Revelation, I suggest you tell the voice that > > you'd better check a few facts before buying into what it says. > > > > Dark matter is displaced by matter.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -
From: mpc755 on 10 Jul 2010 12:54 On Jul 10, 12:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 9, 6:17 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 9, 6:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 9, 5:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 9, 6:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 9, 5:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 5:57 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Edward Green wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 1:04 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Edward Green wrote: > > > > > > > >> >> On Jul 7, 10:06 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > > > > >> >>> Yes, I know you claim the CMBR dipole=0 frame is the > > > > > > > >> >>> ether frame. But that is not LET. Lorentz obviously had > > > > > > > >> >>> no knowledge of the CMBR, and could not possibly have > > > > > > > >> >>> put it into his theory. Moreover, while there might be > > > > > > > >> >>> some merit to your claim if relative to that frame the > > > > > > > >> >>> CMBR was isotropic, it isn't. > > > > > > > > >> > Really? That's very interesting. Would you care to elaborate? > > > > > > > > >> Wilson and Penzias discovered the CMBR in the 1960s; Lorentz died in > > > > > > > >> 1928. > > > > > > > > >> The CMBR has a rich and varied multipole structure, as any good reference > > > > > > > >> on it will show. There are maps of CMBR temperature in all directions, > > > > > > > >> and they have LOTS of structure; ironically, they are invariably > > > > > > > >> displayed in the dipole=0 frame (because otherwise the dipole would > > > > > > > >> obscure the structure because the dipole is by far the largest multipole > > > > > > > >> present). Selecting the frame in which its dipole moment is zero cannot > > > > > > > >> cancel all the other multipoles, and thus it is not isotropic in that > > > > > > > >> frame. > > > > > > > > > Well, that puts you at direct odds with Paul Stowe, who says the > > > > > > > > multipoles are "s-l-i-g-h-t", i.e., on the level of 1 part in 100,000 > > > > > > > > -- however exactly that is quantified. > > > > > > > > Paul Stowe is stupid and does not understand basic observational fact, > > > > > > > unfortunately neither personality defect stops him from commenting upon > > > > > > > things. > > > > > > > > > BTW, what is "doubly special relativity"? > > > > > > > > A theory in which both c and h are invariant under Lorentz transformations. > > > > > > > Basic observations like the associated dark matter displacement wave a > > > > > > moving particle has? > > > > > > Nobody cares, Michael P. Cavedon. > > > > > Quit whoring for attention. > > > > > How does matter and dark matter, both of which consist of mass, occupy > > > > the same point in three dimensional space simultaneously? > > > > > They don't. > > > > So say you. Because you say that it is a Natural Law by Divine > > > Revelation that two things with mass cannot occupy the same space. > > > This law, of course, did not come from anywhere but that creepy voice > > > in your head, which you believe implicitly and which tells you that > > > you have Special Insight. > > > > Furthermore, you have not read anywhere that matter and dark matter > > > occupy the same POINT. Matter is defined as having mass and occupying > > > VOLUME, which a point does not have. Secondly, mass is a *property*, > > > not a stuff. So matter does not sit at a POINT. And also matter does > > > not "consist of" mass; it has the property of mass. So your question > > > should read instead: "How does matter and dark matter, both of which > > > exhibit the property of mass, occupy the same volume in three > > > dimensional space simultaneously?" > > > > And the answer to that is, "Easily." > > > A mole of nitrogen gas (22.1 liters) does not displace a mole of > > > oxygen gas (22.1 liters). They both occupy the same volume together > > > (22.1 liters). This is a common phenomenon and you breath a mixture > > > that is similar to this. > > > When nitrogen gas and oxygen gas both occupy the same volume together > > the mass of the volume increases. > > > As the Earth moves through dark matter the mass of the Earth is not > > continually increasing. > > If the amount of dark matter changes that the Earth moves through, yes > it does. > I don't know what measurement you are referring to that says the mass > of the volume occupied by the earth is unchanging. > The amount of dark matter does not have to change unless your concept of dark matter is as an absolutely stationary space. The Earth moves and interacts with dark matter. If matter and dark matter can occupy the same volume simultaneously then there are a couple of possible solutions as to what physically occurs in nature. One is, the mass of the dark matter is added to the volume containing the matter. This increases the mass of the volume. The matter then interacts with more dark matter and the mass of this dark matter is added to the mass of the matter and so on. Whenever matter interacts with dark matter the mass of the dark matter is added and remains with the volume associated with the matter. I'm going to assume this is not what you are suggesting. Another possible solution is the mass of the dark matter increases the mass of the volume of the matter as a particular volume of three dimensional space is occupied by both the matter and the dark matter. As the matter continues to move, the dark matter associated with this particular volume of three dimensional space no longer interacts with the matter and the matter interacts with another volume of dark matter. If this interaction is completely undetectable then there is no difference between dark matter and the absolutely stationary space of Lorentz. There is evidence which is not supportive of dark matter being an absolutely stationary space. 'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter' http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html "The simulations show that when the two clusters smash together, the dark matter falls to the center of the combined cluster and sloshes back out." "The wreck created a ripple of dark matter, which is somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the water." This is evidence of dark matter displaced by matter. The state of the dark matter as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the dark matter in neighboring places is the dark matter's state of displacement. Dark matter is displaced by matter on the galaxy cluster and quantum scales. Moving matter has an associated dark matter displacement wave. The particle always being detected exiting a single slit is evidence of the particle always exiting a single slit and is evidence of the associated dark matter displacement wave exiting multiple slits and creating interference which alters the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle is evidence of the decoherence of the associated dark matter displacement wave (i.e. the dark matter displacement wave is turned into chop) and there is no interference. Your analogy dark matter and matter occupy the same volume simultaneously and there is no physical interaction between dark matter and matter is not supported by the evidence. The physical interaction and the evidence is of dark matter displaced by matter. > > > > Your analogy is incorrect. > > > The nuclei which is the matter which is the Earth displaces dark > > matter. > > Dark matter is not at rest when displaced and displaces back. > > Displaced dark matter exerts pressure towards the Earth. > > Pressure exerted by displaced dark matter towards matter is gravity. > > > > An electric field can sit in vacuum or it can sit in a material > > > substance without displacing anything. Turning on an electric field > > > does not increase the volume of any material substance, and it doesn't > > > push anything out of the way (which is what "displacement" MEANS). And > > > the protons, electrons, and neutrons feel the electric field at the > > > very place where they are sitting, which means that they do not push > > > the electric field out of the way either. > > > > So the next time that creepy little voice in your head tells you these > > > Natural Laws by Divine Revelation, I suggest you tell the voice that > > > you'd better check a few facts before buying into what it says. > > > > > Dark matter is displaced by matter.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: mpc755 on 10 Jul 2010 13:06
On Jul 10, 12:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 9, 6:17 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 9, 6:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 9, 5:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 9, 6:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 9, 5:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 5:57 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Edward Green wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 1:04 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Edward Green wrote: > > > > > > > >> >> On Jul 7, 10:06 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > > > > >> >>> Yes, I know you claim the CMBR dipole=0 frame is the > > > > > > > >> >>> ether frame. But that is not LET. Lorentz obviously had > > > > > > > >> >>> no knowledge of the CMBR, and could not possibly have > > > > > > > >> >>> put it into his theory. Moreover, while there might be > > > > > > > >> >>> some merit to your claim if relative to that frame the > > > > > > > >> >>> CMBR was isotropic, it isn't. > > > > > > > > >> > Really? That's very interesting. Would you care to elaborate? > > > > > > > > >> Wilson and Penzias discovered the CMBR in the 1960s; Lorentz died in > > > > > > > >> 1928. > > > > > > > > >> The CMBR has a rich and varied multipole structure, as any good reference > > > > > > > >> on it will show. There are maps of CMBR temperature in all directions, > > > > > > > >> and they have LOTS of structure; ironically, they are invariably > > > > > > > >> displayed in the dipole=0 frame (because otherwise the dipole would > > > > > > > >> obscure the structure because the dipole is by far the largest multipole > > > > > > > >> present). Selecting the frame in which its dipole moment is zero cannot > > > > > > > >> cancel all the other multipoles, and thus it is not isotropic in that > > > > > > > >> frame. > > > > > > > > > Well, that puts you at direct odds with Paul Stowe, who says the > > > > > > > > multipoles are "s-l-i-g-h-t", i.e., on the level of 1 part in 100,000 > > > > > > > > -- however exactly that is quantified. > > > > > > > > Paul Stowe is stupid and does not understand basic observational fact, > > > > > > > unfortunately neither personality defect stops him from commenting upon > > > > > > > things. > > > > > > > > > BTW, what is "doubly special relativity"? > > > > > > > > A theory in which both c and h are invariant under Lorentz transformations. > > > > > > > Basic observations like the associated dark matter displacement wave a > > > > > > moving particle has? > > > > > > Nobody cares, Michael P. Cavedon. > > > > > Quit whoring for attention. > > > > > How does matter and dark matter, both of which consist of mass, occupy > > > > the same point in three dimensional space simultaneously? > > > > > They don't. > > > > So say you. Because you say that it is a Natural Law by Divine > > > Revelation that two things with mass cannot occupy the same space. > > > This law, of course, did not come from anywhere but that creepy voice > > > in your head, which you believe implicitly and which tells you that > > > you have Special Insight. > > > > Furthermore, you have not read anywhere that matter and dark matter > > > occupy the same POINT. Matter is defined as having mass and occupying > > > VOLUME, which a point does not have. Secondly, mass is a *property*, > > > not a stuff. So matter does not sit at a POINT. And also matter does > > > not "consist of" mass; it has the property of mass. So your question > > > should read instead: "How does matter and dark matter, both of which > > > exhibit the property of mass, occupy the same volume in three > > > dimensional space simultaneously?" > > > > And the answer to that is, "Easily." > > > A mole of nitrogen gas (22.1 liters) does not displace a mole of > > > oxygen gas (22.1 liters). They both occupy the same volume together > > > (22.1 liters). This is a common phenomenon and you breath a mixture > > > that is similar to this. > > > When nitrogen gas and oxygen gas both occupy the same volume together > > the mass of the volume increases. > > > As the Earth moves through dark matter the mass of the Earth is not > > continually increasing. > > The problem, you see, is that you are still listening to that creepy > voice in your head that is telling you Truths by Divine Revelation, > and you're not responding back to the voice that you'd better check > the facts first. > The evidence is dark matter is displaced by matter. 'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter' http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html "Astronomers using NASAs Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark matter, which is somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the water." There is no reason, except for the absurd nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and your state of denial, to suggest dark matter is not displaced by matter on the quantum scale. > > > > Your analogy is incorrect. > > > The nuclei which is the matter which is the Earth displaces dark > > matter. > > Dark matter is not at rest when displaced and displaces back. > > Displaced dark matter exerts pressure towards the Earth. > > Pressure exerted by displaced dark matter towards matter is gravity. > > > > An electric field can sit in vacuum or it can sit in a material > > > substance without displacing anything. Turning on an electric field > > > does not increase the volume of any material substance, and it doesn't > > > push anything out of the way (which is what "displacement" MEANS). And > > > the protons, electrons, and neutrons feel the electric field at the > > > very place where they are sitting, which means that they do not push > > > the electric field out of the way either. > > > > So the next time that creepy little voice in your head tells you these > > > Natural Laws by Divine Revelation, I suggest you tell the voice that > > > you'd better check a few facts before buying into what it says. > > > > > Dark matter is displaced by matter.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > |