Friday, November 03, 2006


This image of Galaxy Cluster MS 0735.6+7421 combines data from the Chandra X-Ray observatory, Hubble Space Telescope, and Very Large Array in new Mexico. This cluster contains dozens of galaxies held together by gravity. The red jets come from a Black Hole with a billion (10^9) times the mass of our Sun! The jets displace 10^12, a trillion solar masses of gas.

The blue regions are hot gas filling the space between galaxies. Cavities within the gas are filled with charged particles spiralling around magnetic field lines. These cavities are 640,000 light-years in diameter, nearly seven times the size of our galaxy. These are also possible locations of Black Holes.

According to theories of "dark energy," 5 billion years ago its repulsive force would have begun to dominate. Formation of galaxy clusters would have ceased as repulsion overcame gravity. We would see more clusters in the past than exist today. Astronomers have found FEWER clusters in the past, telling us that clusters are still forming. Rather than tearing itself apart with "dark energy," the Universe continues to form more complex structures.

Results from Chandra and the XMM-Newton spacecraft show that attractive "dark" mass is 4 times as abundant as previously thought. Instead of just 24%, dark stuff comprises the 95% of the Universe that is not baryons. There is no need for a repulsive "dark energy" to fill the rest. Our 4.507034% of light-emitting matter is just a footnote. We are the lights hinting at something else in the darkness.


Blogger nige said...

Hi Louise,

The problem I have with assertions like this is what contingency plans you have in case I'm right and there is a dimensionless constant you have missed out of the formula GM=tc^3.

The correct derivation should come from setting E = mc^2 = mMG/x = mMG/(ct)

Hence: GM = tc^3.

However, in this PHYSICAL derivation, x = ct is the effective radius of the mass in the universe from us.

This radius is SMALLER than the horizon radius.

In other words, the time t in your formula will correspond to only a fraction of the age of the universe!

This means that you are underestimating the amount of visible mass in the universe. The correction factor I find from working on the dynamics of Yang-Mills exchange radiation at and is e^3 for this model or (1/2)*e^3 as the multiplying factor for the "critical density" in the false Friedmann solution of GR.

This means that your equation is underestimating the amount of visible matter in the universe by a factor of e^3 or 20 times.

By the way, what do you think about female string theory Harvard Professor Lisa Randall? Who do you think the comment by me refers to?

Mars is a really great planet. Check it out sometime!


2:05 AM  
Blogger L. Riofrio said...

Hi Nigel: There is always the possibility that some dimensionless factor like e^3 needs to be put in the equation. When George Gamow first figured out the CMB temperature he came up with 50K instead of the 2.7K actual value. We would still have c ~ t^(-1/3) and all that follows. When figuring out ci/co the constants fall out of the equation anyway.

I pleasantly met Lisa Randall at the Lake Tahoe conference. Her book has some useful bits about standard model physics before it veers off into speculation. It would be nice to publish more papers and be cited many times, but that will not make a woman happy. I will remember to keep in shape when I am older.

9:21 AM  
Blogger nige said...

Hi Louise,

Thanks for replying, although I believe my evidence is beyond a mere "possibility" and is more like a hard fact. (Maybe I'll have to try to make a briefer statement of my evidence.)

There is a series of tragedies in physics when people assert things that they believe in, without having hard evidence to back them up.

Often they are wrong, and lead physics into a religion.

It then is very hard to make physics back out of the religion without being damaged.

I've done all I can to publicise the facts by writing papers and getting publications in Electronics World after being rejected elsewhere.

Regards Professor Lisa Randall, she has come up with ideas lacking evidence, and I hope you are truly concerned with PHYSICS above all else. Otherwise, you won't know what is right in your theory and will end up like a string theorist, trapped in speculations which waste everyone's time.

Speculating is cheap, speculations are two a penny.

It would be nice if you could continue trying to find hard evidence to substantiate each idea you have.

Many thanks,

12:49 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page