On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 8:20:41 AM UTC-6 Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 28 Nov 2020, at 20:44, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Wow, if this is not a great compendium of nonsense! I can't vouch for the > publications, and the Researchgate is not itself a gatekeeping > organization. > > I have utterly no idea what is meant by dark chemistry. Dark matter is > only inferred through gravitational lensing effects. > > > OK, but I guess you agree that it has been “discovered” to explain the > anormal speed of the stars (even more when they are in the extremity of the > spiral arms). Then we have detected some lensing effects which can be > explained again only with the presence of some invisible matter, like Drake > matter seems to be. > > > Dark matter is either some sort of particle-field, which is the more standard perspective, or if not it is some odd phase that quantum vacuum states which thread spacetime in entanglements enter into that acts as a sort of mass-gap. If it is a particle-field it probably does not even interact with itself much, for if it did there would be some dissipation of energy and the dark matter halos would collapse. So far they appear to be very long lasting and stable. There are ideas of there being a parallel "dark universe" of particles, which have even dark photons. However, if a lot of dark photons are emitted the dark matter halos of galaxies and galactic clusters would lose energy and decrease in volume. There is not evidence of that.
> > > We have no idea what this is and how it fits into the spectrum of known > elementary particles. It does not appear to interact at all strongly with > anything, including itself. As a result we have no idea of what it is, and > to speculate on dark chemistry and worse dark biology is absurd. > > > I agree. Some people like to invent theories based on what we don’t > understand. It helps them to make such theories hard to refute and test. > “Dark” means that we see the effect, without any clue about what that can > cause those effects. One thing seems to be well verified: the galaxies > seems to be distributed on cosmic filament following that “dark matter”… > > Bruno > > > The term dark is a misnomer. Invisible matter would be a better term. There is some form of either matter particle-field or some unknown mass-gap associated with a phase of spacetime involved. One of the Verlinde's has proposed something like that. Dark energy is better known; it is the quantum vacuum. The unknown there is how this vacuum energy density is so utterly small, when a straightforwards and naive summation over vacuum modes is very large. LC > > > LC > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2f3c3ca2-2b8a-448a-95cc-7c3544e2b0fcn%40googlegroups.com.
