1. TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users. Ask a question and give support. Join the community here.
    TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users.
    Ask a question and give support.
    Join the community here, it only takes a minute.
    Dismiss Notice

Scientists have come up with a new potential method for detecting dark matter

By Polycount · 34 replies
Jun 12, 2019
Post New Reply
  1. JaredTheDragon

    JaredTheDragon TS Guru Posts: 585   +383

    So several days ago I posted the 15-years-old solution to "dark matter" including the relevant papers and it was "deleted for trolling."

    That's the state of physical science around here - there is none, and it's not acceptable to SOLVE any problems. All of you should have read those quick papers (since it's an easy solution), but it looks like the Techspot folks don't want answers - just headlines. Solving physics problems doesn't generate revenue.

    In case you WERE interested in the solution, research the mass of charge itself. That's the missing 95% mass in their muddled math. Charge.
     
  2. lexster

    lexster TS Maniac Posts: 466   +233

    Oh I feel you... See the following;
    https://www.techspot.com/community/topics/techspot-commenters.254626/#post-1753849
    There's a lot more to it than that, but you're on the right track.
     
  3. JaredTheDragon

    JaredTheDragon TS Guru Posts: 585   +383

    There's really not much more to it than that. The proton recycles 19 times its own mass per second in charge photons, and that 19 times isn't a coincidence. 19/20 is 95%. That's the missing mass in all the "dark matter" conundrums, outright. They simply failed to account for the mass of the photons involved. That's it. It's literally that simple, as Mathis showed us well over a decade ago.
     
  4. neeyik

    neeyik TS Addict Posts: 93   +78

    Mathis? As in, Miles Mathis, the well regarded, qualified, peer-reviewed, data-proven scientist? The very same Miles Mathis who assures us all that the entire mathematical world is totally wrong and that the value of pi is 4 and not a transcendental irrational real number? The Miles Mathis that can categorically prove Goldbach's Conjecture - a feat that has been beyond the greatest minds in mathematics? The very same Miles Mathis who would have us all believe that Stephen Hawking died decades ago and was replaced by an imposter?

    Oh I could be so way off the mark here, it'd be like me trying to hit Pluto by throwing a rock at it from Earth, but it kinda, maybe, just possibly, have something to do with the reason that (a) the collective field of astrophysicists, cosmologists, and theoretical physicists still believe the dark matter issue has yet to be resolved, and (b) your post detailing an alleged solution from a not well regarded, not even remotely qualified, absolutely not peer-reviewed, and without a hint of statistically valid, scientifically valid, mathematically correct evidence 'scientist' was deleted?

    Maybe? Perhaps?
     
    Morris Minor and Lew Zealand like this.
  5. JaredTheDragon

    JaredTheDragon TS Guru Posts: 585   +383

    Or maybe you can't actually refute his work, his writing, his theory, or his solutions in any way except to say that they aren't the mainstream ones. Oh, no maybe there - since you didn't actually refute or argue any of the points, math, or details of any of his theories. Your retort was simply the Bandwagon Fallacy with a hearty side of Straw Man salad.

    1. There is no "entire mathematical world." Where is it? Do you mean the bodies of work done by Newton, Laplace, Maxwell, Einstein, and those folks? Interesting that Mathis actually ADDS to their work and refines it to match current data in almost every paper, then. So which "entire mathematical world" are you referring to that Miles (never says) is totally wrong?

    2. Since you obviously didn't read any of his papers on Pi=4, you couldn't know that his solution at 4 is for KINEMATIC mathematics only, and that Pi=3.14 still holds for any static mathematics, such as architecture or shapes. Pi=3.14 is Pi without the time variable that all motion requires. But you couldn't have known this since you never read the papers, so we can forgive your mistake there.

    3. Thank you for posting his fix of Goldbach's Conjecture. But why didn't your post get deleted, when mine did? And it appears you also didn't read that paper even though you linked it - or else you'd know exactly how he fixed the issue, which is really quite simple once you read the paper. But again, we can forgive you since you didn't actually read the paper.

    4. There is no "collective field", and no valid "peer review". Science isn't a democracy. A theory is right or wrong based on its own merit or falsification, and you haven't even attempted to falsify Miles' theories here - since you don't even know them, since you didn't bother reading them. And for "peer review" to matter, one must first have peers. Are you a peer of Miles'? When you still haven't even read his works or solved any of these standing problems, yourself? Are these other "collective field" people peers of his, since they can't even answer or solve any of these 300+ major math and physics problems sitting on the table? No, no, and no. That's just an Appeal to Authority, one which is false not just because it's a fallacy but also because these other folks are NOT authorities on the topic, despite their (and your) claim to be so. If they were authorities on the topics, why can't they solve them? The person who solves a scientific problem becomes the authority, not the people still foundering and struggling and getting it wrong.

    Notice I haven't attacked you personally once here. I have only pointed out that you obviously haven't read any of his work, and your entire rebuttal was not a rebuttal at all, since it was a Swiss cheese of fallacies and incompetent polemics.
     
  6. JaredTheDragon

    JaredTheDragon TS Guru Posts: 585   +383

    Another "maybe" or "perhaps" question would be why didn't you actually post any relevant papers to the actual topic. You know, Dark Matter? It's even in the headline. Why aren't you attempting to refute his charge math, which shows exactly where the missing mass is, and what it is? Why post links to other topics as misdirection instead of addressing the question at hand?

    Rhetorical questions only. The answer is that you simply cannot refute his math, or else you just would have done that.
     
  7. neeyik

    neeyik TS Addict Posts: 93   +78

    As you say, this is a thread about a recently published theoretical model for dark matter, so it's not correct place to go off and attempt to work through Mathis' arguments. I could have, for example, pointed out that his paper on electric charge makes a statement on the "gravity of a photon" which is done in another paper, that also requires an explanation from another one, hoping through another, before terminating with a final requirement. That last one I did read, admittedly to no great depth due to its verbose nature, specifically this part (which is ultimate proof that the Newtonian gravitational force equation is actually an electromagnetic field equation):
    This simply isn't an electromagnetic field equation, not least because it contains no aspect of electromagnetism (such charge density or the electric constant) nor is it a vector field equation. This is also the keystone to Mathis' paper on dark matter, which is just not a concrete (I was going to say "not concrete enough", but the since his electromagnetic field equation is entirely dimensionless, I'll stick with just "concrete") foundation to give his dark matter paper any weight.

    I did my first degree, in mathematical physics, over 30 years ago, so my knowledge is obviously going to be rusty, especially since I'm not a researcher in dark matter. The folks in the following link do seem to be, though:

    https://arxiv.org/search/physics?qu...acts=show&order=-announced_date_first&size=50

    A search of all fields for reference to Mathis' work, in the linked papers, yields no results (this, of course, does not preclude his work being used or referenced, just that the search engine found no reference). But let's suppose his work is valid and is correct - why would researchers continue to devote precise time and money on something that would be fully resolved, and had been for many years? It's possible these researchers are completely unaware of Mathis' work but given that his name is known even in the small college I lecture at, I'd find it surprising that all of them didn't know about him. Perhaps they've dismissed his ideas entirely out of hand; not too hard to imagine, given that he is insinuating that standard model physicists are insulting ones intelligence with their work.

    I could have done all that, but as I had obviously not read any of his work, I clearly would not have the faculties to do so. Anyway, back to the topic at hand: dark matter candidates and other news:

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/space_time/dark_matter/

    Let's try this one:

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190610142016.htm

    Oh. Dang it. That's the same story. Here we go again!
     
    Morris Minor likes this.
  8. JaredTheDragon

    JaredTheDragon TS Guru Posts: 585   +383

    We can definitely forgive you for being 30 years behind. That was my point in the beginning, which is part of what was deleted by TPTB. Then you say you read this paper, but in fact you just scrolled down a few pages and cherry-picked an equation you didn't understand, or you simply suffer from malliteracy (in the best-case scenario). His equation is most certainly an E/M field equation - since he's showing the balance of charge vs. gravity in Newton's variable G. All you do is state that it is not and then say "charge density" and "electric constant", when this equation has nothing to do with either of those aspects of charge. You evidently also do not know what charge actually is - and thus, your vehemence I imagine, since Mathis is the one who showed us what charge is (mechanically and physically) to begin with. So here's the rest of that section, explaining exactly why and what he is doing that you somehow missed, including the paragraph directly after that equation:

    Of course it's a vector field equation. That's what the variables mean. It's not a difficult equation either, so even though your education is 30 years old I feel like you should have been able to read this simple math and figure out what he's doing. It is rather amusing that you did not.

    It's even more amusing that you don't know what charge is and here you are attempting to call out an equation about charge. Please at least tell us you know what electricity and magnetism are? Give us some sign you know what you're talking about at all? I really want to believe in you!

    From the same paper:
    And he does, in fact, show below that his equation yields the correct number given known data on the Moon. So tell us how his equation with its great simplicity gives us the proper numbers matching data (that nobody else has ever done so elegantly) and then show us how he's wrong - given that his field equation matches actual, measured data.

    Are we to believe the Moon isn't actually orbiting the Earth, next? That's what you're effectively proposing.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2019
  9. lexster

    lexster TS Maniac Posts: 466   +233

    @JaredTheDragon
    While that work is interesting and indeed seemingly compelling, it has a few unanswered(and perhaps unanswerable) questions.

    The core problem with all of these theory's is that they depend on General and Special Relativity, which itself does not explain many aspects of the observed behavior of the universe. Relativity predicts that the universe should not be expanding and not accelerating, two things it is doing. There are other problems that exist as well. So either Relativity is partial wrong, or the universe is misbehaving. Which seems more likely? Before we can have a hope of answering the mysteries that perplex us still, we need to fix(or replace) the Theory of Relativity.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2019
    JaredTheDragon likes this.
  10. JaredTheDragon

    JaredTheDragon TS Guru Posts: 585   +383

    I completely agree, and so does Mr. Mathis. He's written some 30+ papers on this very topic, critiquing and correcting Relativity in a multitude of ways. While Einstein was certainly on the right path and had some very solid theory, he also made mistakes (we all do) and his Relativity had no theoretical impetus to motion. Look at Section 2 of Miles' science homepage for a list of his topics and papers on Relativity, expanding and fixing many problems with the theory while keeping the core concepts intact.
     

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...