Does dark matter and dark energy prove Einstein wrong?

Blog 20160120 Does dark matter and dark energy prove Einstein wrong?

Here is an interesting heads up:

“Hi Glenn,

I found the attached "ad" in today's Houston Chronicle newspaper.

I look forward to your reaction, if the ad even makes sense.

Ed Mason”

Thanks so much Ed. If anything, this ad succinctly shows how desperate folks are to clean up the mess left behind by Einstein and the cosmogonists. I come across such “reformist” attempts almost daily. One main characteristic is the acceptance of parts of the relativity/BBT lore and rejection of other parts. Another is the lack of clearly stated fundamental assumptions[1] from which the analysis proceeds.

Here, Mr. Dunham accepts the mainstream interpretation that the universe is expanding, which is based on Einstein’s erroneous particle theory of light. He rejects the Dark Matter interpretation out of hand simply because he expects there to be nearby evidence for it. But, as mentioned in our book,[2] nonluminous matter is common in the universe. Rotating galaxies appear to have much greater masses than nonrotating galaxies even though they may be equally luminous. We speculated that the nonluminous matter consisted of planets not associated with star systems. This follows from vortex theory, in which the rotation of a microcosm causes its submicrocosms to be differentiated by size and density according to Stokes’ Law. We have a demonstration of it on our website.[3] In essence, large, dense objects are pushed toward the center of a vortex more rapidly than small, light objects. Because independent planets are too small to be luminous, we cannot see them with telescopes. In any case, the evidence for dark matter is overwhelming. Big Bang or not, its absence in the local region is no disproof of relativity. That was done long ago by Sagnac's experimental support in favor of aether,[4] and more recently, by Bryant, as mentioned in last week’s Blog.[5]

Be reminded, however, that “Dark Energy” cannot possibly exist. Energy is a calculation. All the universe can offer is matter in motion. And, according to the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion), energy cannot exist or occur as a separate constituent of the universe. Nonetheless, dark matter must be in motion too, and we should be able to perform energy calculations based on it.

Another error in the Dunham analysis involves his view that the Big Bang can be treated as a 3-D explosion. However, if one wishes to play in the Big Bang sandbox, one must play by the rules, which, according to GRT, use time as a dimension. Instead, readers know that time is motion[6] and that Einstein’s objectification of it is his greatest philosophical error.[7] The upshot is that we also refuse to play by those rules, but we do not have to deal with the logical contradictions common to reformists such as Dunham. The infinite universe cannot expand, for there is nowhere for it to expand into. Real explosions slow down with distance in the same way that a cannon ball slows down with distance. By accepting the opposite view, Dunham then must invent some way of speeding up the 3-D explosion. He then has to surround the entire observed universe with “attracting”[8] galaxies, which for some unknown reason, are traveling at superluminal velocities, “pulling” the observed universe apart. All this, to make peace with the regressive view.

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [ http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/TENASSUMPTIONSOFSCIENCE_files/TTAOS.html

[2] Puetz, Stephen J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe: Denver, Outskirts Press, 626 p. [ http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/ ].

[4] Sagnac, Georges, 1913a, The demonstration of the luminiferous aether by an interferometer in uniform rotation: Comptes Rendus, v. 157, p. 708–710.

Sagnac, Georges, 1913b, On the proof of the reality of the luminiferous aether by the experiment with a rotating interferometer: Comptes Rendus, v. 157, p. 1410–1413.

[7] Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Einstein's most important philosophical error, in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011, College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, p. 64-68 [ http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5991.pdf ].

[8] A similar idea has been presented in cosmology as the “great attractor,” which is one explanation for the fact that galaxy clusters appear to be travelling in a preferred direction (Kashlinsky, A., Atrio-Barandela, F., Kocevski, D., and Ebeling, H., 2008, A measurement of large-scale peculiar velocities of clusters of galaxies: Results and cosmological implications: The Astrophysical Journal, v. 686, no. L49–L52). In our “Universal Cycle Theory” book, Steve and I speculated that this might be evidence that the observed universe was revolving within a “local mega-vortex” beyond direct observation.


Bill Howell said...

I agree that the search for Dark Matter is an example of ‘Theoretical Physicists Gone Wild’. I also believe that aether must exist because light is a wave and waves must travel through a medium. If Dark Matter is just aether particles, and they tend to be more concentrated around matter objects like galaxies, then what is your explanation for the flattening of stellar rotation curves?

To clarify: If Newton’s Universal Law of Gravity is universal, these rotation curves should fall-off with distance from the galactic center. If aether particles concentrate around galaxies, it seems to me these rotation curves would rise in the opposite direction to what Newton predicts. What the data shows, however, is that they tend to flat-line with distance from the galactic center in a way that suggests equilibrium to me.

Glenn Borchardt said...

Thanks Bill:

Remember that according to my ADT (Aether Deceleration Theory) [Borchardt, Glenn, 2018, The Physical Cause of Gravitation: viXra:1806.0165.], decelerated aether particles are entrained around every microcosm in the same way that our atmosphere is entrained around Earth. That would be true of the Milky Way. Remember that, unlike the solar system, very little of the mass of the Milky Way exists in its nucleus (99% for the Sun vs. <1% for the Milky Way nucleus). In other words, the inverse square law holds only for a point. When the mass of a vortex is spread out over a large area, the gravitational effects of the various aetherospheres will be spread out over an equally large area.