How likely is it that, since dark matter and dark energy are basically unknowns, we might be wrong at the very basics? If we can
Since LIGO discovery of Gravity Waves, the entire Dark Energy Dark Matter models are essentially tossed out.These were and remain Viral mythos in physics. In the simplest sense, you laugh at proto-humans looking up at the stars, and in a vain attempt at explaining a clearly observable thing via unobservable dimensionalities, the âheavens,†whose Forces are the acts of âthe gods,†any unobservable, rendered to explain a clearly observable phenomenon; is exactly the same human process.If you cannot explain a clearly observable: The Great Pyramid; with an observable; Ancient Astronuats, where âData†is any:The Hubble Parameter: regardless of method or technology, ranges by 800%, from 15 to 110.Lisa Zyga, Why do measurements of the gravitational constant vary so much?, Phys.org - News and Articles on Science and Technology 21 April 2024. showing us this graph, credited to Anderson, et al:In the below paper, the LASER ranging of the lunar distance agenda was to validate the Equivalence Principle(s) of General Relativity. As such, after figuring in the aforementioned· Geodetic de Sitter precession· dS Coupling constant of Yukawa potential Space-curvature parameter· Combination of parameters [These are observed violations of Special Relativity that have no description]· EP-violating coupling of normal matter to âdark matter†at the galactic center.· the Sunâs J2 [surface ripple feature]· They report: 'variation of the gravitational constant in the order of 8 · 10â13 yrâ1.'*Muller et all DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-34377-6_21 · Source: arXivIn perspective, the reported value, taking all of these bizarre non-sequiturs into account, 8E-13 is larger than the standard error in the history of measurement; as per the graph above.The NIST listing for the value G is an 850 page text, all a list of hypotheses why G is immeasurable.The Anthropic Principle(s), e.g. âFine-Tuning†of the Universe; of G were off in the 50th decimal place, our universe would have collapsed in on itself, or evaporated off [Heath Death] billions of years ago.THEREFORE: what I call âData,†and what fills 10-billion pages of peer reviewed scientific literature regarding the hypotheses to explain âData,†with no result, e.g. Grand Unification, are quite different.In Voodoo, chicken bones [7 to be exact] are thrown on a table top. The placement and orientation of the chicken bones is then âData,†that describes what happened, what is happening, and what will happen, and why. The âorientation†is defined as; not magnetic North, but facing away from the guy who throws the chicken bones. The interpretation of the orientation of the chicken bones is invariably, the Forces, interactions between good and bad demons and spirits†unobservables.LIGO - GW170817LIGO is an interferometer that functions by detecting its own change of state via a Schwarzschild Transformation under General Relativity; e.g. Gravity Wave passing through the interferometer, altering its path-length. This was predicted by Wheeler in 1955, and the entire scaffold for building the device. The 'Space-time Inversion' was also predicted by Wheeler in the same lecture. Simply, if Alice and Bob [the two source Black Holes] were to remain in an equiorbit, the GW would not be detected as such, but have a completely different fingerprint. The 'fingerprint' in question is referred to as the 'Chirp-Mass:'The source Black Holes, Alice and Bob, upon coalescence into what I have labeled Victor, the product Black Hole, as a result of irreversible entropy, have undergone Information Destruction. Simply, they have irreversibly ceased to exist, as Qubit for Qubit, although we could potentially milk 2 new Black Holes from Victor, not Alice nor Bob.This was Wheeler's sequitur use of syntagm; 'A Gravity Wave is simply Gravitation Without Mass.' Here, he was not referring to a GW as akin to a photon without the electron [whose orbital transition gave rise to it] present within the photon wave function; as is senseless to say. He was describing the destruction of Information years before Information Theory. However, such causal components and such far ahead of his time, qualitatively not understood. For those of you familiar; Wheeler, Thorne, and Misner wrote: Gravitation.Dark Matter supposes a halo of invisible matter in a sphere surrounding a galaxy, which would tear it into a nebula before it could even form. Ludicrous. The reason was because grad students couldnât figure out why the gravitational lensing around a galaxy was more than it should be, suggesting more mass. The extra mass is simply constructive interference of overlapping Gravity Waves from the slowing turning galaxy of perhaps half a trillion solar masses. The Lin-Shu Density Wave, in 1962, explained the galactic spiral and its coherence, but the Gravity Wave had not yet been proven, and the model almost forgotten.Now, the Lin-Shu Density Wave (LSDW) will probably earn them a Nobel. The LSDW proposes three Gravity Waves, one emanating directly outward from the super massive black hole at the center, like a drop in a pond, the second, rippling along the length of the curving spiral arm, and the third, the weakest, as a trail following the path of the turning spiral arm. It is a complex system.Lin-Shu Density Wave Theory and its estuary aspects, epicyclic frequency, inner and outer Lindblad resonances, explain the large scale structures of spiral arms effectively. The term, Omega, is the global pattern speed of the winding galaxy (spinning without losing the winding). The Corotation Radius (CR) of a particular star is the distance from the dead center. Unlike the Dark Matter model, which is backward, and proven wrong by observation, the CR of the inner stars move faster than the outermost distant star (That is how we found the super massive black holes at the center to begin with). In order to maintain the spiral structure, the CR must be less than the Epicyclic Frequency (EF), given bySo, the EF must be less than or equal to the total winding speed (x2) over the distance from the center (square root of). The Lindblad Resonance (LR) is the frequency of the Gravity wave traveling along the length of the spiral, from the center, curving along its length.There is a great video of this actually (I hate using this) the Wikipedia entry. It shows how the LR travels the length of the arm outward from the center, keeping the form solid. There is an inner and outer LR, one wave travels from the center outward, the other is like a ricochet from the outer edge back inward.The LSDW has been proven using Saturnâs rings as a model. Without the LSDW, a galaxy would have unwound into a nebula after about 3 turns. This is called the âWinding Problem.âDark Matter supposes this:It doesnât take a genius to figure out that this will not form a spiral galaxy, but turn it into a nebula before it can even form. The idea was a preposterous work by grad students decades ago, who obviously could not do math. That flat inner spiral galaxy, like an old fashioned record (LP), would be ripped apart by this Dark Matter Halo.Attempts have been made to resurrect the model, but they are also ludicrous, vane efforts.As for Dark Energy, the apparent âacceleration†of the expansion of the cosmos is because the redshifted light has to pass through all of these overlapping Gravity Waves emitted from almost a trillion galaxies. As a result, this is what we get for the Hubble parameter as measured over the past 15 years:That %RSD has to be a fraction of a percent (0.2%) to make a claim like, âthe expansion is accelerating.†Furthermore, you can see there is no improvement in precision with time and technology. It is a seemingly random splay of data. However, if you organize them by distance surveiled, you get this:These are definite jumps, almost as though they were quantized. However, the thing to know is that the 6 jumps Iâve labeled are by supercluster group. The more distant superclusters have to pass through more overlapping Gravity Waves then the closer ones, hence, the parameter seems slower (the more distant superclusters start from left to right) at greater distance.I found this creatively selective chartYou will note that (this Wikipedia entry) has eliminated some data points. Most noteable is the Chandra 2024 high of 92.5, which the author has chopped down to about 88. However, I did not include the GW170817, as I did not have the data when I wrote that text entry.The problem is, physicists think there is supposed to be 1 correct value. This is not the case. The multitude of reasons for variations with distance are more than just Gravity Waves.It is imperative that you read the link below:Bill Bray's answer to Quantum physics says that merely observing an object changes it. Does a first observation maintain any effect or control over how later observations affect the object? Do multiple observations of the same object result in an âaverageâ change?In this answer, pay particular attention to this:This is an example of Tensor Network Complexity under Conformal Field Theory. In the simplest sense, the demons at the center are actually the same size (Scale Invariance) as those on the edge, even though they appear larger. This is what I refer to as âthe Quantized Meter Stick,†which is described at: Bill Bray's answer to In space and space travel in science fiction, we see the ships always run their engines. Why would they need to constantly fire their engines?The meter sticks on the edge are a meter long, and the meter sticks in the middle, although they appear larger, are the same size. Think of a projection map, and Greenland, although quite small, appears to take up a huge surface area. That is a 2-d Conformal Scale Invariance.Now, if you use a meter stick on the outer edge to measure velocity across the demons in the middle, you will (because it takes many of your meter sticks to equal one demon in the demon fractal above) think that the velocity is greater. In simple terms, the Hubble Parameter is an artifact of Conformal Scale Invariance.I actually show the fractal that describes this at Bill Bray's answer to Why is Planck length minimum measurable length?In order to begin to understand the Tensor Network Complexity, you first have to have a grip on Quantum Entanglement, which is correctly described at Bill Bray's answer to What is quantum entanglement, and what is a superposition in quantum mechanics?Iâm still editing a text on the AdS/CFT model in Holographic Theory, when it is done, I will post some of the strange things that âscientists†do not appear to be keeping up with.Keep in mind that this information (1962) goes back over half a century, the AdS/CFT (Malcedena) goes back to 1999 (the most cited paper in history that no one has read; AKA reference mining, so as to make it appear your âbig hypothesis†is backed up by the AdS/CFT model). So, physicists who still talk about âDark Matter†and Dark Energy, bizarre descriptions of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (in particular, the concept that âparticles†have any role in the HUP, and superposition does not), Quantum Entanglement, the Anthropic Principle(s), the observer effect, âParticle Physics,†and so on, apparently are between 20 to 50 years behind. LIGO was fairly recent, 2024. but no one has connected the dots. You will note in the âengine paper,†that the space-time inversion physicists thought would require half a galaxy of exotic matter to produce ânegative energy,†(to produce Alcubierreâs space-time manifold) occurs in nature, as shown in that LIGO image.John Wheeler described Gravity Waves as âGravitation without mass.†The confirmation of Gravity Waves by LIGO has changed everything.Also note, that between this and the links to my other answers provided above, there are altogether about 300 peer-reviewed scientific references. Most of then are in the public domain, so as not to âreference mine†the discussion.The basic problem in urban science is that of the many thousands of papers Iâve read, I connect the dots. Most âscientists†do not read many papers nor do they see how they are connected. They creatively select the papers they read, by not reading those papers that do not appear to agree with their âopinions.âItâs time to connect the very obvious dots and put stupid ideas behind us. Read carefully. Do not have an âopinion,†the evidence of the fact that an âopinion†is a bad thing is that, if the scientists a century ago creatively selected what they read, the atom would still be a hypothesis by Aristotle, God knows what time would be, the Milky Way wold be the entire universe, static and infinite, Gravity would be a âforce,†not a geometry, radiation would be some magical artifact of the ether that photons propagate through, dogs and cats lying togetherâŠLin, C.C.; Shu, F.H. (1964). "On the spiral structure of disk galaxies". Astrophysical Journal. 140: 646â655. Bibcode:1964ApJ...140..646L. doi:10.1086/147955Phillipps, Steven (2024). The Structure & Evolution of Galaxies. Wiley. pp. 132â3. ISBN -470-85506-1Goldreich, Peter; Tremaine, Scott (May 1978). "The formation of the Cassini division in Saturn's rings". Icarus. Elsevier Science. 34 (2): 240â253. Bibcode:1978Icar...34..240G. doi:10.1016/0019-1035(78)90165-3. [This is not a free article]Yuan, C.,"Application of Density-Wave Theory to the Spiral Structure of the Milky Way System I. Systematic Motion of Neutral Hydrogen", Ap.J., 158, 871 (1969). (SCI)THIS PAPER DESCRIBES THE PROPAGATION OF THE DENSITY WAVE: On the Density-Waveheory of Galactic Spirals. II. The Propagation of the Density of Wave Action,Authors: Shu, F. H.; Journal: Astrophysical Journal, vol. 160, p.99 Bibliographic Code: 1970ApJ...160...99SHUBBLE PARAMETER MISSIONSRiess, Adam G.; Casertano, Stefano; Yuan, Wenlong; Macri, Lucas; Bucciarelli, Beatrice; Lattanzi, Mario G.; MacKenty, John W.; Bowers, J. Bradley; Zheng, WeiKang; Filippenko, Alexei V.; Huang, Caroline; Anderson, Richard I. (2024). "Milky Way Cepheid Standards for Measuring Cosmic Distances and Application to Gaia DR2: Implications for the Hubble Constant". The Astrophysical Journal. 861 (2): 126. arXiv:1804.10655âŻFreely accessible. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac82e. ISSN 004-637X. Retrieved 14 July 2018.Devlin, Hannah (10 May 2018). "The answer to life, the universe and everything might be 73. Or 67". the Guardian. Retrieved 13 May 2018.Riess, Adam G.; Casertano, Stefano; Yuan, Wenlong; Macri, Lucas; Anderson, Jay; MacKenty, John W.; Bowers, J. Bradley; Clubb, Kelsey I.; Filippenko, Alexei V.; Jones, David O.; Tucker, Brad E. (22 February 2018). "New parallaxes of galactic Cepheids from spatially scanning the Hubble Space Telescope: Implications for the Hubble constant" (PDF). The Astrophysical Journal (accepted for publication). Retrieved 23 February 2018.Weaver, Donna; Villard, Ray; Hille, Karl (22 February 2018). "Improved Hubble Yardstick Gives Fresh Evidence for New Physics in the Universe". NASA. Retrieved 24 February 2018.The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and The Virgo Collaboration; The 1M2H Collaboration; The Dark Energy Camera GW-EM Collaboration and the DES Collaboration; The DLT40 Collaboration; The Las Cumbres Observatory Collaboration; The VINROUGE Collaboration; The MASTER Collaboration (2017-10-16). "A gravitational-wave standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant". Nature. advance online publication. arXiv:1710.05835âŻFreely accessible. Bibcode:2017Natur.551...85A. doi:10.1038/nature24471. ISSN 1476-4687.Feeney, Stephen M; Peiris, Hiranya V; Williamson, Andrew R; Nissanke, Samaya M; Mortlock, Daniel J; Alsing, Justin; Scolnic, Dan (2024). "Prospects for resolving the Hubble constant tension with standard sirens". arXiv:1802.03404âŻFreely accessible [http://astro-ph.CO].Vitale, Salvatore; Chen, Hsin-Yu (12 July 2018). "Measuring the Hubble Constant with NStar Black Hole Mergers". Physical Review Letters. 121 (2): 21303. arXiv:1804.07337âŻFreely accessible. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.021303. Retrieved 14 July 2018.Bonvin, Vivien; Courbin, FrĂ©dĂ©ric; Suyu, Sherry H.; et al. (2016-11-22). "H0LiCOW †V. New COSMOGRAIL time delays of HE 435â1223: H0 to 3.8 per cent precision from strong lensing in a flat ÎCDM model". MNRAS. 465 (4): 4914â4930. arXiv:1607.01790âŻFreely accessible. Bibcode:2017MNRAS.465.4914B. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3006.Grieb, Jan N.; SĂĄnchez, Ariel G.; Salazar-Albornoz, Salvador (2016-07-13). "The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological implications of the Fourier space wedges of the final sample". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: stw3384. arXiv:1607.03143âŻFreely accessible. Bibcode:2017MNRAS.467.2085G. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3384."The Extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (eBOSS)". SDSS. Retrieved 13 May 2018.Riess, Adam G.; Macri, Lucas M.; Hoffmann, Samantha L.; Scolnic, Dan; Casertano, Stefano; Filippenko, Alexei V.; Tucker, Brad E.; Reid, Mark J.; Jones, David O. (2016-04-05). "A 2.4% Determination of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant". The Astrophysical Journal. 826: 56. arXiv:1604.01424âŻFreely accessible. Bibcode:2016ApJ...826...56R. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/56."Planck Publications: Planck 2024 Results". European Space Agency. February 2024. Retrieved 9 February 2015.Cowen, Ron; Castelvecchi, Davide (2 December 2014). "European probe shoots down dark-matter claims". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2014.16462. Retrieved 6 December 2014.Tully, R. Brent; Courtois, Helene M.; Dolphin, Andrew E.; Fisher, J. Richard; Heraudeau, Philippe; Jacobs, Bradley A.; Karachentsev, Igor D.; Makarov, Dmitry; Makarova, Lidia; Mitronova, Sofia; Rizzi, Luca; Shaya, Edward J.; Sorce, Jenny G.; Wu, Po-Feng (5 September 2013). "Cosmicflows-2: The Data". The Astronomical Journal. 146 (4): 86. arXiv:1307.7213âŻFreely accessible. Bibcode:2013AJ....146...86T. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/146/4/86. ISSN 004-6256.Bucher, P. A. R.; et al. (Planck Collaboration) (2024). "Planck 2024 results. I. Overview of products and scientific Results". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 571: A1. arXiv:1303.5062âŻFreely accessible [http://astro-ph.CO]. Bibcode:2014A&A...571A...1P. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321529."Planck reveals an almost perfect universe". ESA. 21 March 2024. Retrieved 2013-03-21."Planck Mission Brings Universe Into Sharp Focus". JPL. 21 March 2024. Retrieved 2013-03-21.Overbye, D. (21 March 2013). "An infant universe, born before we knew". New York Times. Retrieved 2013-03-21.Boyle, A. (21 March 2013). "Planck probe's cosmic 'baby picture' revises universe's vital statistics". NBC News. Retrieved 2013-03-21.Bennett, C. L.; et al. (2024). "Nine-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Final maps and results". The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series. 208 (2): 20. arXiv:1212.5225âŻFreely accessible. Bibcode:2013ApJS..208...20B. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/20.Jarosik, N.; et al. (2024). "Seven-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Sky maps, systematic errors, and basic results". The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series. 192 (2): 14. arXiv:1001.4744âŻFreely accessible. Bibcode:2011ApJS..192...14J. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/14.Results for H0 and other cosmological parameters obtained by fitting a variety of models to several combinations of WMAP and other data are available at the NASA's LAMBDA website.Hinshaw, G.; et al. (WMAP Collaboration) (2024). "Five-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe observations: Data processing, sky maps, and basic results". The Astrophysical Journal Supplement. 180 (2): 225â245. arXiv:0803.0732âŻFreely accessible. Bibcode:2009ApJS..180..225H. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/180/2/225.Spergel, D. N.; et al. (WMAP Collaboration) (2024). "Three-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Implications for cosmology". The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series. 170 (2): 377â408. arXiv:astro-ph/0603449âŻFreely accessible. Bibcode:2007ApJS..170..377S. doi:10.1086/513700.Bonamente, M.; Joy, M. K.; Laroque, S. J.; Carlstrom, J. E.; Reese, E. D.; Dawson, K. S. (2024). "Determination of the cosmic distance scale from SunyaevâZel'dovich effect and Chandra Xâray measurements of highâredshift galaxy clusters". The Astrophysical Journal. 647: 25. arXiv:astro-ph/0512349âŻFreely accessible. Bibcode:2006ApJ...647...25B. doi:10.1086/505291.Planck Collaboration (2024). "Planck 2024 results. XVI. Cosmological parameters". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 571: A16. arXiv:1303.5076âŻFreely accessible [http://astro-ph.CO]. Bibcode:2014A&A...571A..16P. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321591.Freedman, W. L.; et al. (2024). "Final results from the Hubble Space Telescope Key Project to measure the Hubble constant". The Astrophysical Journal. 553 (1): 47â72. arXiv:astro-ph/0012376âŻFreely accessible. Bibcode:2001ApJ...553...47F. doi:10.1086/320638
