FW: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Dark-Matter Universe?
general_the...@googlegroups.com<mailto:general_the...@googlegroups.com> Subject: RE: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Dark-Matter Universe? [Philip Benjamin] There is nothing controversial here. No origin of life or consciousness or higher spirits or whateber else of a metaphysical nature is not the subject here. In fact there is no need of any of that for a rational discussion. 1. Does dark-matter exist, as determined by Fritz Zwicky (1933) and Veera Rubin (1960’s). 1. . If dark matter has chemistry (spin governed configurations of particle- duet, octet, of negligible mass with respect to electron), then will there be dark bodies from the moment of conception (dark chemical bonds being non-electric, non-entropic and enduring)? 3. 2.Will resonance between the dark and light bodies be a BASIS (noi origin) of self-consciousness? These are rationsl, scientific – not metaphysical—questions. Only befuddled WAMP “useful idiots” conforming to global Marxist-Socialist-Fascist paganism with Un-awakened Consciousness (UC) can indulge in Ad Hominem Fallacy here. Philip Benjamin Non-Conformist From: 'Rosemary Rock-Evans' via Consciousness-Online mailto:general_the...@googlegroups.com>> Sent: Wednesday, November 3, 2021 5:33 PM To: general_the...@googlegroups.com<mailto:general_the...@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Dark-Matter Universe? I'm quite glad not to be involved in what sounds a somewhat - ahem - heated debate. But I'm losing track on what is agreed and disagreed. 1. 95% of the universe is 'dark' in that the 5 senses of the human being are unable to perceive it, nor can their instruments detect it as the instruments were designed for the 5 senses of the human being 'Fritz Zwicky’s (1933) missing matter confirmed by Veera Rubin in the 1960’s which constitute about 95% of the universe only 5% of the known matter of the Universe can have ordinary chemistry'. 2. It could be 'unprogrammed energy' - what the Greeks called chaos - or 'programmed energy' in that it is energy displaying properties, which may themselves be 'visible' and called chemistry or invisible which in some cases are called 'physics' eg the attractive force = gravity. On the other hand the programmed energy that is invisible and describes functions physicists no nothing of, is given all sorts of names and only studied by poets and artists eg love, joy, sorrow . 3 In a human being, the controlling entity by which this can be known is called the Higher spirit, Buddha nature, atman, immortal soul etc. On death, during NDEs and OBEs, consciousness transfers to the Higher spirit/immortal soul but a link remains to the body until the person dies in which case the immortal soul 'flies' free and invisible " And if it leads to a non-electric, non-entropic, enduring being of negligible mass, so be it. That is called SCIENCE, not religion." which it probably will. 4 But every aggregate, not just a human being will have such a point of consciousness, so as the human dies so will all those sub-aggregates and sub-aggregates with sub-aggregates that made its totality And new aggregates will be formed displaying new properties and we call this chemistry too, decomposition of the aggregate followed by composition into a new aggregate displaying new properties Attraction then repulsion, love and hate, black and white, the endless cycles and swing of the pendulum ticking forward. Tiktok. rosie -- Original Message -- From: "Philip Benjamin" mailto:medinucl...@hotmail.com>> To: "general_the...@googlegroups.com<mailto:general_the...@googlegroups.com>" mailto:general_the...@googlegroups.com>> Sent: Wednesday, 3 Nov, 21 At 14:31 Subject: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Dark-Matter Universe? On Behalf Of Samiya Illias Friday, October 29, 2021 5:32 PM everything-list@googlegroups.com<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Dark-Matter Universe? See if this is of any help: https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2021/08/adams-covenant-expulsion-overview.html<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsignsandscience.blogspot.com%2F2021%2F08%2Fadams-covenant-expulsion-overview.html=04%7C01%7C%7Cea890176a1f24979ff2a08d99f19f387%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637715756077967844%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=1wELQyHBPbkjdGUWySk3RWl8%2BXJGYmysBjkGqV%2FzaoY%3D=0> [Philip Benjamin] How is this of any help? None whatsoever!! It is irrational that Fritz Zwicky’s (1933) missing matter confirmed by Veera Rubin in the 1960’s which constitute about 95% of the universe be deprived of any extraordinary chemistry and only 5% of the known matter of the Universe can have ordinary chemistry. I remember when I first proposed that idea a WAMP told me to shut up lest I be considered a fool, another told m
RE: Dark-Matter Universe?
On Behalf Of Samiya Illias Friday, October 29, 2021 5:32 PM everything-list@googlegroups.com<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Dark-Matter Universe? See if this is of any help: https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2021/08/adams-covenant-expulsion-overview.html<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsignsandscience.blogspot.com%2F2021%2F08%2Fadams-covenant-expulsion-overview.html=04%7C01%7C%7Cbcc144dd5c354e9e3e5208d99b2bf8d9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637711435441140098%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=83WhFDSrJ32nQe1Rqj6lnopBRbcL8CRoFNK0VHlxcD4%3D=0> [Philip Benjamin] How is this of any help? None whatsoever!! It is irrational that Fritz Zwicky’s (1933) missing matter confirmed by Veera Rubin in the 1960’s which constitute about 95% of the universe be deprived of any extraordinary chemistry and only 5% of the known matter of the Universe can have ordinary chemistry. I remember when I first proposed that idea a WAMP told me to shut up lest I be considered a fool, another told me that he will pack me up and return to my old country, yet another ridiculed that I am implying that “spirits” exist, et., etc. Call it by any name you want to—spirit, soul or jinn or atman—laws of chemistry are universal and applicable to ALL matter. And if it leads to a non-electric, non-entropic, enduring being of negligible mass, so be it. That is called SCIENCE, not religion.. Thanks, anyway!! Philip Benjamin [http://darkmatternatureofscience.weebly.com/-zwicky.html In 1933 Zwicky discovered a discrepancy between the luminous mass that could be calculated in a galaxy due to observations motion in reference to the stars, and the mass calculated based on a galaxies velocity using the "spatial distribution test", as well as the "virial theorem" on galaxies in the "Coma Cluster] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias Friday, October 29, 2021 5:32 PM everything-list@googlegroups.com<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Dark-Matter Universe? See if this is of any help: https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2021/08/adams-covenant-expulsion-overview.html<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsignsandscience.blogspot.com%2F2021%2F08%2Fadams-covenant-expulsion-overview.html=04%7C01%7C%7Cbcc144dd5c354e9e3e5208d99b2bf8d9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637711435441140098%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=83WhFDSrJ32nQe1Rqj6lnopBRbcL8CRoFNK0VHlxcD4%3D=0> On 29-Oct-2021, at 8:02 PM, Philip Benjamin mailto:medinucl...@hotmail.com>> wrote: [Jesse Mazer] “ So when you say dark and light matter "interact with each other", are you just saying that dark matter particles interact with one another in a way that's analogous to how regular atoms interact? Or are you saying that dark matter can interact with normal matter in a way that produces "reciprocal motion", "resonance structures" etc.?” [Philip Benjamin] No, not particles per se, but “chemical bonds”—Light & Dark- can interact. I have nor so far come across the impossibility of dark matter interacting with ITSELF, though nothing yet to explain how it does!! For the sake of argument, suppose the light-matter particles (Standard Model) do not interact. Then ther will not be a light-matter universe of chemicals and life forms. How can the “dark-universe” of the theorists be an exception? . Astrophysics has the tools and mathematics to prove or disprove the existence of dark matter partilcs or dark atoms. That is not the matter of discussion here. Philip Benjamin From: everything-list@googlegroups.com<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> On Behalf Of Jesse Mazer Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 12:31 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Dark-Matter Universe? "Dark and light chemical bonds have similar properties, interact with each other, rotate, vibrate, oscillate, have reciprocal motion, stretch, contract, have resonance structures, associate, dissociate, bend and break." As I understand it, the general framework of quantum field theory says that the only* way particles can interact with each other is via exchange forces, with the four known forces between baryons being the "strong" and "weak" nuclear forces, the electromagnetic force, and gravitational force (though the latter is not yet covered by quantum field theory, it would require a theory of quantum gravity, perhaps a more complete version of string theory). And there are some known types of particles like neutrinos where both theory and empirical evidence indicate that they do not
Re: Dark-Matter Universe?
See if this is of any help: https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2021/08/adams-covenant-expulsion-overview.html > On 29-Oct-2021, at 8:02 PM, Philip Benjamin wrote: > > > [Jesse Mazer] > “ So when you say dark and light matter "interact with each other", are you > just saying that dark matter particles interact with one another in a way > that's analogous to how regular atoms interact? Or are you saying that dark > matter can interact with normal matter in a way that produces "reciprocal > motion", "resonance structures" etc.?” > [Philip Benjamin] > No, not particles per se, but “chemical bonds”—Light & Dark- can > interact. I have nor so far come across the impossibility of dark matter > interacting with ITSELF, though nothing yet to explain how it does!! For the > sake of argument, suppose the light-matter particles (Standard Model) do not > interact. Then ther will not be a light-matter universe of chemicals and life > forms. How can the “dark-universe” of the theorists be an exception? . > Astrophysics has the tools and mathematics to prove or disprove the > existence of dark matter partilcs or dark atoms. That is not the matter of > discussion here. > Philip Benjamin > From: everything-list@googlegroups.com On > Behalf Of Jesse Mazer > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 12:31 PM > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: Dark-Matter Universe? > > "Dark and light chemical bonds have similar properties, interact with each > other, rotate, vibrate, oscillate, have reciprocal motion, stretch, contract, > have resonance structures, associate, dissociate, bend and break." > As I understand it, the general framework of quantum field theory says that > the only* way particles can interact with each other is via exchange forces, > with the four known forces between baryons being the "strong" and "weak" > nuclear forces, the electromagnetic force, and gravitational force (though > the latter is not yet covered by quantum field theory, it would require a > theory of quantum gravity, perhaps a more complete version of string theory). > And there are some known types of particles like neutrinos where both theory > and empirical evidence indicate that they do not interact with the protons, > neutrons and electrons that make up our body via the strong or > electromagnetic forces, the only interaction they have with us is via gravity > or via the "weak" nuclear interaction (which accounts for why only a tiny > fraction of neutrinos have scattering interactions with any part of the Earth > as they pass through it, the vast majority pass right through millions of > miles of solid rock as if it were empty space). By far the most popular > theory of dark matter, which in cosmological computer simulations seems to > provide a good match to empirical observations, is that dark matter is made > up of "WIMPs" or weakly-interacting massive particles, which like neutrinos > would only interact with normal matter via gravity and the weak force. Lisa > Randall is postulating a new force that only operates between some subtype of > dark matter particles, but this theory doesn't challenge the theory that > interactions between dark matter and normal baryonic matter are exclusively > due to gravity and the weak force. > > So when you say dark and light matter "interact with each other", are you > just saying that dark matter particles interact with one another in a way > that's analogous to how regular atoms interact? Or are you saying that dark > matter can interact with normal matter in a way that produces "reciprocal > motion", "resonance structures" etc.? And if the latter, are you imagining > the weak nuclear force would be sufficient for this, or are you assuming some > new undiscovered force mediating the interaction, or are you questioning the > whole quantum field theory framework saying that different particles can only > interact via specific exchange forces? > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 11:21 AM Philip Benjamin > wrote: > [Jesse Mazer] > “Lisa Randall's work doesn't say anything about dark matter interacting with > baryonic (normal) matter via the strong nuclear force or the electromagnetic > force (the former is responsible for binding the nucleus of atoms together, > the latter for electromagnetic radiation and chemical bonds), so the kind of > dark matter that she postulates could have nothing to do with biophotons or > the supposed "additional mass of life" that Philip Benjamin mentions.” > [Philip Benjamin] > You are right. But here is the missing point. A school of fish is not
RE: Dark-Matter Universe?
[Jesse Mazer] “ So when you say dark and light matter "interact with each other", are you just saying that dark matter particles interact with one another in a way that's analogous to how regular atoms interact? Or are you saying that dark matter can interact with normal matter in a way that produces "reciprocal motion", "resonance structures" etc.?” [Philip Benjamin] No, not particles per se, but “chemical bonds”—Light & Dark- can interact. I have nor so far come across the impossibility of dark matter interacting with ITSELF, though nothing yet to explain how it does!! For the sake of argument, suppose the light-matter particles (Standard Model) do not interact. Then ther will not be a light-matter universe of chemicals and life forms. How can the “dark-universe” of the theorists be an exception? . Astrophysics has the tools and mathematics to prove or disprove the existence of dark matter partilcs or dark atoms. That is not the matter of discussion here. Philip Benjamin From: everything-list@googlegroups.com On Behalf Of Jesse Mazer Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 12:31 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Dark-Matter Universe? "Dark and light chemical bonds have similar properties, interact with each other, rotate, vibrate, oscillate, have reciprocal motion, stretch, contract, have resonance structures, associate, dissociate, bend and break." As I understand it, the general framework of quantum field theory says that the only* way particles can interact with each other is via exchange forces, with the four known forces between baryons being the "strong" and "weak" nuclear forces, the electromagnetic force, and gravitational force (though the latter is not yet covered by quantum field theory, it would require a theory of quantum gravity, perhaps a more complete version of string theory). And there are some known types of particles like neutrinos where both theory and empirical evidence indicate that they do not interact with the protons, neutrons and electrons that make up our body via the strong or electromagnetic forces, the only interaction they have with us is via gravity or via the "weak" nuclear interaction (which accounts for why only a tiny fraction of neutrinos have scattering interactions with any part of the Earth as they pass through it, the vast majority pass right through millions of miles of solid rock as if it were empty space). By far the most popular theory of dark matter, which in cosmological computer simulations seems to provide a good match to empirical observations, is that dark matter is made up of "WIMPs" or weakly-interacting massive particles, which like neutrinos would only interact with normal matter via gravity and the weak force. Lisa Randall is postulating a new force that only operates between some subtype of dark matter particles, but this theory doesn't challenge the theory that interactions between dark matter and normal baryonic matter are exclusively due to gravity and the weak force. So when you say dark and light matter "interact with each other", are you just saying that dark matter particles interact with one another in a way that's analogous to how regular atoms interact? Or are you saying that dark matter can interact with normal matter in a way that produces "reciprocal motion", "resonance structures" etc.? And if the latter, are you imagining the weak nuclear force would be sufficient for this, or are you assuming some new undiscovered force mediating the interaction, or are you questioning the whole quantum field theory framework saying that different particles can only interact via specific exchange forces? On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 11:21 AM Philip Benjamin mailto:medinucl...@hotmail.com>> wrote: [Jesse Mazer] “Lisa Randall's work doesn't say anything about dark matter interacting with baryonic (normal) matter via the strong nuclear force or the electromagnetic force (the former is responsible for binding the nucleus of atoms together, the latter for electromagnetic radiation and chemical bonds), so the kind of dark matter that she postulates could have nothing to do with biophotons or the supposed "additional mass of life" that Philip Benjamin mentions.” [Philip Benjamin] You are right. But here is the missing point. A school of fish is not a fish. Chemical bonds are not chemicals. They are configurations of particles, octets and duets. Universe is not just free particles running amuck!! Particles have to combine into the makeup of a universe. A dark-universe cannot be an exception. Interaction between dark-particles is a necessity for a dark-universe. Biophotons reflect energetics between “bonds” not particles per se. Interactions of dark bonds and light bonds is not the same as that between dark and light particles. Dark and li
Re: Dark-Matter Universe?
Right Jesse, I don't worship at the Church of Dark Matter, merely like to give speculative science a voice. If such doesn't exist, well, I will get over it somehow. Theoretical physics for me, is only useful (to me) if it can somehow be applied to help people? If somebody quotes a physicist, then he quotes a physicist. I am suspecting that there are discoveries yet to be made regarding the universe, all waiting for the correct equipment to detect and observe. But that claim of mine may not be true. Onwards we roll, with me habitually keeping an eye to my own questions; can it be helpful, can it be used? -Original Message- From: Jesse Mazer To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Oct 28, 2021 1:17 am Subject: Re: Dark-Matter Universe? Lisa Randall's work doesn't say anything about dark matter interacting with baryonic (normal) matter via the strong nuclear force or the electromagnetic force (the former is responsible for binding the nucleus of atoms together, the latter for electromagnetic radiation and chemical bonds), so the kind of dark matter that she postulates could have nothing to do with biophotons or the supposed "additional mass of life" that Philip Benjamin mentions. Rather her suggestion about a new "hypothetical type of dark matter" is about a type of dark matter particle that interacts more strongly with other dark matter particles of the same type, different from the standard idea of "cold dark matter" that has almost no non-gravitational self-interaction. See the abstract of her paper at https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1521 which talks about how this hypothetical form of dark matter could self-interact in a way that causes it "cool efficiently and form a disk within galaxies": "Based on observational constraints on large scale structure and halo structure, dark matter is generally taken to be cold and essentially collisionless. On the other hand, given the large number of particles and forces in the visible world, a more complex dark sector could be a reasonable or even likely possibility. This hypothesis leads to testable consequences, perhaps portending the discovery of a rich hidden world neighboring our own. We consider a scenario that readily satisfies current bounds that we call Partially Interacting Dark Matter (PIDM). This scenario contains self-interacting dark matter, but it is not the dominant component. Even if PIDM contains only a fraction of the net dark matter density, comparable to the baryonic fraction, the subdominant component's interactions can lead to interesting and potentially observable consequences. Our primary focus will be the special case of Double-Disk Dark Matter (DDDM), in which self-interactions allow the dark matter to lose enough energy to lead to dynamics similar to those in the baryonic sector. We explore a simple model in which DDDM can cool efficiently and form a disk within galaxies, and we evaluate some of the possible observational signatures." Randall later offered the speculation that if such a disc exists, its gravitational influence on our solar system passing through it periodically over huge spans of time might disrupt the orbits of small bodies like asteroids and comets enough to make mass extinctions more likely during such transits, which could fit with prior speculations that mass extinctions seem roughly periodic (I remember this was once used to argue for the existence that the Sun could have a companion star, 'Nemesis', with an extremely long eccentric orbit, though from what I remember the whole idea that mass extinctions are periodic was dismissed by many as finding a false pattern in noisy data). This is discussed in the review of her book "Dark Matter and the Dinosaurs" at https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/books/review/dark-matter-and-the-dinosaurs-by-lisa-randall.html which says that the hypothetical self-interaction force between dark matter has been called "dark light" (though the name is just an analogy, it would be separate from the electromagnetic force), and it also says that she emphasizes that all this is extremely speculative. Jesse On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 3:53 PM spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Sorry LC, you as a physicist probably don't have time or interest to answer PB's assertions, but refutation rationally requires a person to show how Lisa Randall is wrong? The same with Sorli in Slovenia. On the other hand if you don't like beer, nobody is going to make you like beer. Are you obligated to enter into endless discussions concerning assertions on physics that you know to be wrong? Naw. Most days, I just don't have the interest in purported, dark-matter life, anymore than I have the interest in angels. From our limited perspective today in 2021, the likelihood of other civilizations appears remote to the point of having become uninteresting. Refuting may best be d
Re: Dark-Matter Universe?
Well we know the Standard Model was shelved back in 1997 correct? So onwards we march in an ever-accelerating universe. My suspicion is that given enormous funding, we could line the rim of the solar system out past the heliosphere with both gigantic radio and optical telescopes some of our laws would prove often accurate under the correct conditions. Is that statement true? Not today it's not, because we will have to have the machinery to uncover new evidence and new anomalies. I have heard the dark matter speculation beyond this wee emailing group. I couldn't swear it was Avi Loeb, but he always jumps on this kind of thing? If there is dark matter and its complex, then yeah, maybe life and intelligence. But it'd probably be the size of Western Canada, being only held together by gravity and not electrons. I ain't holding my breath, and ain't hoping for Oumauamua to return for a chat. Still, you're in the education business and being an educator means that at least you give a whack at disposing nonsense with scientific observation. Beyond a one-off thing, it's all yours. Also, there doesn't appear to be any undergrads available to set it correctly. -Original Message- From: Lawrence Crowell To: Everything List Sent: Tue, Oct 26, 2021 7:58 pm Subject: Re: Dark-Matter Universe? On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 3:30:45 PM UTC-5 jameswr...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 9:53:26 PM UTC+2 spudb...@aol.com wrote: Sorry LC, you as a physicist probably don't have time or interest to answer PB's assertions, but refutation rationally requires a person to show how Lisa Randall is wrong? The same with Sorli in Slovenia. On the other hand if you don't like beer, nobody is going to make you like beer. Are you obligated to enter into endless discussions concerning assertions on physics that you know to be wrong? Naw. Most days, I just don't have the interest in purported, dark-matter life, anymore than I have the interest in angels. From our limited perspective today in 2021, the likelihood of other civilizations appears remote to the point of having become uninteresting. Refuting may best be done by lawyers, but dismissing your colleagues' works seems much more sketchy. That's upside down. When making non-standard assertions the burden of proof lies with those that make the claims. There are always unknown phenomena, which doesn't count as evidence. The existence of angels/dark matter entities is not something one can simply invert by saying "well, prove me wrong", unless one lives and is totally enchanted by local little internet/social-media bubbles. If you need lawyers for refutation and are irritated by sketchy behavior, then the suggestion to avoid the internet is appropriate. Because along those lines, you now have to believe in dark matter angels or pay a lawyer to refute it for you. Otherwise you may seem much more sketchy yourself. James Wright Right, and on top of it I do not have and neither does anyone else have the time or the energy to refute every knucklehead who promotes this sort of balderdash. That would become a full-time job. A sufficiently grounded undergraduate student in physics at the junior level should clock this stuff below as total nonsense. It does not require an exhaustive review, it is just thrown out. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/83e2bf54-698d-4279-8d59-fb50f30d28b7n%40googlegroups.com. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/140330955.1363262.1635468842303%40mail.yahoo.com.
Re: Dark-Matter Universe?
"Dark and light chemical bonds have similar properties, interact with each other, rotate, vibrate, oscillate, have reciprocal motion, stretch, contract, have resonance structures, associate, dissociate, bend and break." As I understand it, the general framework of quantum field theory says that the only* way particles can interact with each other is via exchange forces, with the four known forces between baryons being the "strong" and "weak" nuclear forces, the electromagnetic force, and gravitational force (though the latter is not yet covered by quantum field theory, it would require a theory of quantum gravity, perhaps a more complete version of string theory). And there are some known types of particles like neutrinos where both theory and empirical evidence indicate that they do not interact with the protons, neutrons and electrons that make up our body via the strong or electromagnetic forces, the only interaction they have with us is via gravity or via the "weak" nuclear interaction (which accounts for why only a tiny fraction of neutrinos have scattering interactions with any part of the Earth as they pass through it, the vast majority pass right through millions of miles of solid rock as if it were empty space). By far the most popular theory of dark matter, which in cosmological computer simulations seems to provide a good match to empirical observations, is that dark matter is made up of "WIMPs" or weakly-interacting massive particles, which like neutrinos would only interact with normal matter via gravity and the weak force. Lisa Randall is postulating a new force that only operates between some subtype of dark matter particles, but this theory doesn't challenge the theory that interactions between dark matter and normal baryonic matter are exclusively due to gravity and the weak force. So when you say dark and light matter "interact with each other", are you just saying that dark matter particles interact with one another in a way that's analogous to how regular atoms interact? Or are you saying that dark matter can interact with normal matter in a way that produces "reciprocal motion", "resonance structures" etc.? And if the latter, are you imagining the weak nuclear force would be sufficient for this, or are you assuming some new undiscovered force mediating the interaction, or are you questioning the whole quantum field theory framework saying that different particles can only interact via specific exchange forces? On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 11:21 AM Philip Benjamin wrote: > [*Jesse Mazer*] > > “Lisa Randall's work doesn't say anything about dark matter interacting > with baryonic (normal) matter via the strong nuclear force or the > electromagnetic force (the former is responsible for binding the nucleus of > atoms together, the latter for electromagnetic radiation and chemical > bonds), so the kind of dark matter that she postulates could have nothing > to do with biophotons or the supposed "additional mass of life" that Philip > Benjamin mentions.” > > [*Philip Benjamin*] > > You are right. But here is the missing point. A school of fish is not a > fish. Chemical bonds are not chemicals. They are configurations of > particles, octets and duets. Universe is not just free particles running > amuck!! Particles have to combine into the makeup of a universe. A > dark-universe cannot be an exception. Interaction between dark-particles is > a necessity for a dark-universe. Biophotons reflect energetics between > “bonds” not particles per se. Interactions of dark bonds and light bonds is > not the same as that between dark and light particles. > >Dark and light chemical bonds have similar properties, interact > with each other, rotate, vibrate, oscillate, have reciprocal motion, > stretch, contract, have resonance structures, associate, dissociate, bend > and break. These cause weak changes in energetics of the *light-matter > chemical bonds,* resulting in emission of weak photons known as > biophotons. The sudden burst of biophotons at the moment of death of plant > and animal cells results from the breaking of the coupling forces. OBE/NDE > phenomena depend on the extent of“bond-dissociation. > Sorli’s additional mass is worth exploring further. > > *Philip Benjamin* > > *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com > *On Behalf Of *Jesse Mazer > *Sent:* Thursday, October 28, 2021 12:17 AM > *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: Dark-Matter Universe? > > > > Lisa Randall's work doesn't say anything about dark matter interacting > with baryonic (normal) matter via the strong nuclear force or the > electromagnetic force (the former is responsible for binding the nucleus of > atoms together, the latter for electromagnetic radiation and chemical &g
RE: Dark-Matter Universe?
[Jesse Mazer] “Lisa Randall's work doesn't say anything about dark matter interacting with baryonic (normal) matter via the strong nuclear force or the electromagnetic force (the former is responsible for binding the nucleus of atoms together, the latter for electromagnetic radiation and chemical bonds), so the kind of dark matter that she postulates could have nothing to do with biophotons or the supposed "additional mass of life" that Philip Benjamin mentions.” [Philip Benjamin] You are right. But here is the missing point. A school of fish is not a fish. Chemical bonds are not chemicals. They are configurations of particles, octets and duets. Universe is not just free particles running amuck!! Particles have to combine into the makeup of a universe. A dark-universe cannot be an exception. Interaction between dark-particles is a necessity for a dark-universe. Biophotons reflect energetics between “bonds” not particles per se. Interactions of dark bonds and light bonds is not the same as that between dark and light particles. Dark and light chemical bonds have similar properties, interact with each other, rotate, vibrate, oscillate, have reciprocal motion, stretch, contract, have resonance structures, associate, dissociate, bend and break. These cause weak changes in energetics of the light-matter chemical bonds, resulting in emission of weak photons known as biophotons. The sudden burst of biophotons at the moment of death of plant and animal cells results from the breaking of the coupling forces. OBE/NDE phenomena depend on the extent of“bond-dissociation. Sorli’s additional mass is worth exploring further. Philip Benjamin From: everything-list@googlegroups.com On Behalf Of Jesse Mazer Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 12:17 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Dark-Matter Universe? Lisa Randall's work doesn't say anything about dark matter interacting with baryonic (normal) matter via the strong nuclear force or the electromagnetic force (the former is responsible for binding the nucleus of atoms together, the latter for electromagnetic radiation and chemical bonds), so the kind of dark matter that she postulates could have nothing to do with biophotons or the supposed "additional mass of life" that Philip Benjamin mentions. Rather her suggestion about a new "hypothetical type of dark matter" is about a type of dark matter particle that interacts more strongly with other dark matter particles of the same type, different from the standard idea of "cold dark matter" that has almost no non-gravitational self-interaction. See the abstract of her paper at https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1521<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F1303.1521=04%7C01%7C%7C3660bfe1a1344400388408d999d23dd9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637709950528166713%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=0bdifKTreWRFIs9%2FDh4fw9hVKUHRZ%2BLX7LGmBprXk5M%3D=0> which talks about how this hypothetical form of dark matter could self-interact in a way that causes it "cool efficiently and form a disk within galaxies": "Based on observational constraints on large scale structure and halo structure, dark matter is generally taken to be cold and essentially collisionless. On the other hand, given the large number of particles and forces in the visible world, a more complex dark sector could be a reasonable or even likely possibility. This hypothesis leads to testable consequences, perhaps portending the discovery of a rich hidden world neighboring our own. We consider a scenario that readily satisfies current bounds that we call Partially Interacting Dark Matter (PIDM). This scenario contains self-interacting dark matter, but it is not the dominant component. Even if PIDM contains only a fraction of the net dark matter density, comparable to the baryonic fraction, the subdominant component's interactions can lead to interesting and potentially observable consequences. Our primary focus will be the special case of Double-Disk Dark Matter (DDDM), in which self-interactions allow the dark matter to lose enough energy to lead to dynamics similar to those in the baryonic sector. We explore a simple model in which DDDM can cool efficiently and form a disk within galaxies, and we evaluate some of the possible observational signatures." Randall later offered the speculation that if such a disc exists, its gravitational influence on our solar system passing through it periodically over huge spans of time might disrupt the orbits of small bodies like asteroids and comets enough to make mass extinctions more likely during such transits, which could fit with prior speculations that mass extinctions seem roughly periodic (I remember this was once used to argue for the existence that the Sun could have a
Re: Dark-Matter Universe?
I just don't have the >> interest in purported, dark-matter life, anymore than I have the interest >> in angels. From our limited perspective today in 2021, the likelihood of >> other civilizations appears remote to the point of having become >> uninteresting. Refuting may best be done by lawyers, but dismissing your >> colleagues' works seems much more sketchy. >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Lawrence Crowell >> To: Everything List >> Sent: Sun, Oct 24, 2021 4:01 pm >> Subject: Re: Dark-Matter Universe? >> >> This is absolute codswallop. >> >> LC >> >> On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 2:27:31 PM UTC-5 medinuclear wrote: >> >> [*Philip Benjamin*] >> Putative champions of dark-mater theories use the term “dark-matter >> universe” without fully appreciating its implications >> *http://cosmos.nautil.us/feature/134/does-dark-matter-harbor-life >> <http://cosmos.nautil.us/feature/134/does-dark-matter-harbor-life>*), >> This *necessarily* requires more than application of physics to *dark-matter >> per se*. Universe involves life forms. Dark-matter universe is no >> exception. That also entails resonant dark-matter lives from the moment of >> conception -- bio dark-matter body vis-à-vis bio light-matter body. No >> chemistry, no life! >> What these theorists are focusing is the unknown astrophysical >> dark-matter. It needs be noted that the known astrophysical light-matter is >> largely ions of the most abundant elements of the universe-- H and He, >> while the biospherical light-matter consists of the 92+ elements of the >> Periodic Table. From symmetrical considerations, there may be a class of >> biospherical dark-matter which these these theorists hypothesize as “small >> fraction of dark matter” with the further remark that “it is definitely a >> worthwhile theory to explore, which has to be bio dark-matter chemistry of >> bio dark-matter atoms. Chemistry means *chemical bonds* which are >> spin-governed particle configurations of *duets* and *octets*. It is >> conceivable that the three flavors of neutrinos may be the counterparts of >> electrons, protons and neutrons. The masses of ν 1 and ν 2 are known to be >> close to one another (verisimilar to the close masses of p and n, while ν 3 >> weighs much less than the other two, such that the ratios of the masses of >> the neutrino flavors correspond to the ratios of the masses of e, p, n. Or. >> the dark matter atoms may consist of monopoles (N & S) and axions, all of >> negligible mass relative to electron mass, but with the same ratios as e, >> p, n. >> *Empirical Evidences:* >> * 1 . Unidentified “Additional Mass of Life*” for a living >> organism in a hermitically sealed system, which disappears at death as >> reported by Amrit S. Sorli, Scientific Research Centre BISTRA, Ptuj, >> Slovenia, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary; >> doi=10.1.1.218.573; https://core.ac.uk/display/21767122. 2012, Journal >> of Theoretics Vol.4-2). >> * 2 . Unidentified Source of biophotons. * >> Dark and light chemical bonds have similar properties, interact >> with each other, rotate, vibrate, oscillate, have reciprocal motion, >> stretch, contract, have resonance structures, associate, dissociate, bend >> and break. These cause weak changes in energetics of the *light-matter >> chemical bonds,* and result in emission of weak photons. They indeed >> exist and are known as *biophotons*. Attributing the origin of that >> emission to DNA is flawed, since the standardized *rate* of emission >> varies across the taxa by an order of magnitude though the DNA structures >> are the same. The sudden burst of biophotons at the moment of death of >> plant and animal cells results from the breaking of the coupling forces. >> OBE/NDE phenomena depend on the extent of “bond-dissociation”. >> >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282154962_Bio_dark-Matter_Chemistry_Implications >> >> https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_spirit_our_energy_Is_spirit_dark_energy >> http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm >> >> >> >> https://www.prlog.org/12085722-dr-philip-benjamin-explains-the-bio-chemistry-of-our-inner-selves-in-his-latest-book.html >> >> “Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit” >> *Corollary: * >> At the moment of conception both light and dark twins in resonance >> are cocr
Re: Dark-Matter Universe?
Lisa Randall's work doesn't say anything about dark matter interacting with baryonic (normal) matter via the strong nuclear force or the electromagnetic force (the former is responsible for binding the nucleus of atoms together, the latter for electromagnetic radiation and chemical bonds), so the kind of dark matter that she postulates could have nothing to do with biophotons or the supposed "additional mass of life" that Philip Benjamin mentions. Rather her suggestion about a new "hypothetical type of dark matter" is about a type of dark matter particle that interacts more strongly with other dark matter particles of the same type, different from the standard idea of "cold dark matter" that has almost no non-gravitational self-interaction. See the abstract of her paper at https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1521 which talks about how this hypothetical form of dark matter could self-interact in a way that causes it "cool efficiently and form a disk within galaxies": "Based on observational constraints on large scale structure and halo structure, dark matter is generally taken to be cold and essentially collisionless. On the other hand, given the large number of particles and forces in the visible world, a more complex dark sector could be a reasonable or even likely possibility. This hypothesis leads to testable consequences, perhaps portending the discovery of a rich hidden world neighboring our own. We consider a scenario that readily satisfies current bounds that we call Partially Interacting Dark Matter (PIDM). This scenario contains self-interacting dark matter, but it is not the dominant component. Even if PIDM contains only a fraction of the net dark matter density, comparable to the baryonic fraction, the subdominant component's interactions can lead to interesting and potentially observable consequences. Our primary focus will be the special case of Double-Disk Dark Matter (DDDM), in which self-interactions allow the dark matter to lose enough energy to lead to dynamics similar to those in the baryonic sector. We explore a simple model in which DDDM can cool efficiently and form a disk within galaxies, and we evaluate some of the possible observational signatures." Randall later offered the speculation that if such a disc exists, its gravitational influence on our solar system passing through it periodically over huge spans of time might disrupt the orbits of small bodies like asteroids and comets enough to make mass extinctions more likely during such transits, which could fit with prior speculations that mass extinctions seem roughly periodic (I remember this was once used to argue for the existence that the Sun could have a companion star, 'Nemesis', with an extremely long eccentric orbit, though from what I remember the whole idea that mass extinctions are periodic was dismissed by many as finding a false pattern in noisy data). This is discussed in the review of her book "Dark Matter and the Dinosaurs" at https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/books/review/dark-matter-and-the-dinosaurs-by-lisa-randall.html which says that the hypothetical self-interaction force between dark matter has been called "dark light" (though the name is just an analogy, it would be separate from the electromagnetic force), and it also says that she emphasizes that all this is extremely speculative. Jesse On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 3:53 PM spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Sorry LC, you as a physicist probably don't have time or interest to > answer PB's assertions, but refutation rationally requires a person to show > how Lisa Randall is wrong? The same with Sorli in Slovenia. On the other > hand if you don't like beer, nobody is going to make you like beer. Are you > obligated to enter into endless discussions concerning assertions on > physics that you know to be wrong? Naw. Most days, I just don't have the > interest in purported, dark-matter life, anymore than I have the interest > in angels. From our limited perspective today in 2021, the likelihood of > other civilizations appears remote to the point of having become > uninteresting. Refuting may best be done by lawyers, but dismissing your > colleagues' works seems much more sketchy. > > > -Original Message- > From: Lawrence Crowell > To: Everything List > Sent: Sun, Oct 24, 2021 4:01 pm > Subject: Re: Dark-Matter Universe? > > This is absolute codswallop. > > LC > > On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 2:27:31 PM UTC-5 medinuclear wrote: > > [*Philip Benjamin*] > Putative champions of dark-mater theories use the term “dark-matter > universe” without fully appreciating its implications > *http://cosmos.nautil.us/feature/134/does-dark-matter-harbor-life > <http://cosmos.nautil.us/feature/134/does-dark-matter-harbor-life>*), > This *necessar
Re: Dark-Matter Universe?
Also, roughly speaking, the plot of Bob Shaw's "A Wreath of Stars" On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 at 14:33, LizR wrote: > Interesting, albeit highly speculative. > > On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 at 08:27, Philip Benjamin > wrote: > >> [*Philip Benjamin*] >> >> Putative champions of dark-mater theories use the term “dark-matter >> universe” without fully appreciating its implications >> *http://cosmos.nautil.us/feature/134/does-dark-matter-harbor-life >> <http://cosmos.nautil.us/feature/134/does-dark-matter-harbor-life>*), >> This *necessarily* requires more than application of physics to *dark-matter >> per se*. Universe involves life forms. Dark-matter universe is no >> exception. That also entails resonant dark-matter lives from the moment of >> conception -- bio dark-matter body vis-à-vis bio light-matter body. No >> chemistry, no life! >> >> What these theorists are focusing is the unknown astrophysical >> dark-matter. It needs be noted that the known astrophysical light-matter is >> largely ions of the most abundant elements of the universe-- H and He, >> while the biospherical light-matter consists of the 92+ elements of the >> Periodic Table. From symmetrical considerations, there may be a class of >> biospherical dark-matter which these these theorists hypothesize as “small >> fraction of dark matter” with the further remark that “it is definitely a >> worthwhile theory to explore, which has to be bio dark-matter chemistry of >> bio dark-matter atoms. Chemistry means *chemical bonds* which are >> spin-governed particle configurations of *duets* and *octets*. It is >> conceivable that the three flavors of neutrinos may be the counterparts of >> electrons, protons and neutrons. The masses of ν 1 and ν 2 are known to be >> close to one another (verisimilar to the close masses of p and n, while ν 3 >> weighs much less than the other two, such that the ratios of the masses of >> the neutrino flavors correspond to the ratios of the masses of e, p, n. Or. >> the dark matter atoms may consist of monopoles (N & S) and axions, all of >> negligible mass relative to electron mass, but with the same ratios as e, >> p, n. >> >> *Empirical Evidences:* >> >> * 1 . Unidentified “Additional Mass of Life*” for a living >> organism in a hermitically sealed system, which disappears at death as >> reported by Amrit S. Sorli, Scientific Research Centre BISTRA, Ptuj, >> Slovenia, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary; >> doi=10.1.1.218.573; https://core.ac.uk/display/21767122. 2012, Journal >> of Theoretics Vol.4-2). >> >> * 2 . Unidentified Source of biophotons. * >> >> Dark and light chemical bonds have similar properties, interact >> with each other, rotate, vibrate, oscillate, have reciprocal motion, >> stretch, contract, have resonance structures, associate, dissociate, bend >> and break. These cause weak changes in energetics of the *light-matter >> chemical bonds,* and result in emission of weak photons. They indeed >> exist and are known as *biophotons*. Attributing the origin of that >> emission to DNA is flawed, since the standardized *rate* of emission >> varies across the taxa by an order of magnitude though the DNA structures >> are the same. The sudden burst of biophotons at the moment of death of >> plant and animal cells results from the breaking of the coupling forces. >> OBE/NDE phenomena depend on the extent of “bond-dissociation”. >> >> >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282154962_Bio_dark-Matter_Chemistry_Implications >> https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_spirit_our_energy_Is_spirit_dark_energy >> >> http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm >> >> >> >> https://www.prlog.org/12085722-dr-philip-benjamin-explains-the-bio-chemistry-of-our-inner-selves-in-his-latest-book.html >> “Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit” >> >> *Corollary: * >> >> At the moment of conception both light and dark twins in resonance >> are cocreated. The former is electric, entropic and unenduring. The latter >> is non-electric, non-entropic and enduring. Resonance is rudimentary >> recognition. That may be the basis of self-awareness. >> >> That means the application of universal laws of chemistry >> (chemical bonds= spin governed particle configurations of duets and >> octets). The resonant twins of bio light-matter and bio dark-matter bodies >> are cocreated at the moment of conception. For the sake of symmetry, the >> former is electric, entropic and non-enduring; the latter is non-electri
Re: Dark-Matter Universe?
Interesting, albeit highly speculative. On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 at 08:27, Philip Benjamin wrote: > [*Philip Benjamin*] > > Putative champions of dark-mater theories use the term “dark-matter > universe” without fully appreciating its implications > *http://cosmos.nautil.us/feature/134/does-dark-matter-harbor-life > <http://cosmos.nautil.us/feature/134/does-dark-matter-harbor-life>*), > This *necessarily* requires more than application of physics to *dark-matter > per se*. Universe involves life forms. Dark-matter universe is no > exception. That also entails resonant dark-matter lives from the moment of > conception -- bio dark-matter body vis-à-vis bio light-matter body. No > chemistry, no life! > > What these theorists are focusing is the unknown astrophysical > dark-matter. It needs be noted that the known astrophysical light-matter is > largely ions of the most abundant elements of the universe-- H and He, > while the biospherical light-matter consists of the 92+ elements of the > Periodic Table. From symmetrical considerations, there may be a class of > biospherical dark-matter which these these theorists hypothesize as “small > fraction of dark matter” with the further remark that “it is definitely a > worthwhile theory to explore, which has to be bio dark-matter chemistry of > bio dark-matter atoms. Chemistry means *chemical bonds* which are > spin-governed particle configurations of *duets* and *octets*. It is > conceivable that the three flavors of neutrinos may be the counterparts of > electrons, protons and neutrons. The masses of ν 1 and ν 2 are known to be > close to one another (verisimilar to the close masses of p and n, while ν 3 > weighs much less than the other two, such that the ratios of the masses of > the neutrino flavors correspond to the ratios of the masses of e, p, n. Or. > the dark matter atoms may consist of monopoles (N & S) and axions, all of > negligible mass relative to electron mass, but with the same ratios as e, > p, n. > > *Empirical Evidences:* > > * 1 . Unidentified “Additional Mass of Life*” for a living organism > in a hermitically sealed system, which disappears at death as reported by > Amrit S. Sorli, Scientific Research Centre BISTRA, Ptuj, Slovenia, > http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary; doi=10.1.1.218.573; > https://core.ac.uk/display/21767122. 2012, Journal of Theoretics > Vol.4-2). > > * 2 . Unidentified Source of biophotons. * > > Dark and light chemical bonds have similar properties, interact > with each other, rotate, vibrate, oscillate, have reciprocal motion, > stretch, contract, have resonance structures, associate, dissociate, bend > and break. These cause weak changes in energetics of the *light-matter > chemical bonds,* and result in emission of weak photons. They indeed > exist and are known as *biophotons*. Attributing the origin of that > emission to DNA is flawed, since the standardized *rate* of emission > varies across the taxa by an order of magnitude though the DNA structures > are the same. The sudden burst of biophotons at the moment of death of > plant and animal cells results from the breaking of the coupling forces. > OBE/NDE phenomena depend on the extent of “bond-dissociation”. > > > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282154962_Bio_dark-Matter_Chemistry_Implications > https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_spirit_our_energy_Is_spirit_dark_energy > > http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm > > > > https://www.prlog.org/12085722-dr-philip-benjamin-explains-the-bio-chemistry-of-our-inner-selves-in-his-latest-book.html > “Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit” > > *Corollary: * > > At the moment of conception both light and dark twins in resonance > are cocreated. The former is electric, entropic and unenduring. The latter > is non-electric, non-entropic and enduring. Resonance is rudimentary > recognition. That may be the basis of self-awareness. > > That means the application of universal laws of chemistry > (chemical bonds= spin governed particle configurations of duets and > octets). The resonant twins of bio light-matter and bio dark-matter bodies > are cocreated at the moment of conception. For the sake of symmetry, the > former is electric, entropic and non-enduring; the latter is non-electric, > non-entropic and enduring. Resonance is rudimentary recognition. It may be > the basis of self-awareness of conscious beings. Consciousness itself must > be an integral part of an enduring but dormant bio dark-matter body. The > dormancy need be quickened or awakened by an external agency, as in the > case of Augustine the chief architect of modern Western Civilization. > > *Philip Benjamin * > >
Re: Dark-Matter Universe?
On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 3:30:45 PM UTC-5 jameswr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 9:53:26 PM UTC+2 spudb...@aol.com wrote: > >> Sorry LC, you as a physicist probably don't have time or interest to >> answer PB's assertions, but refutation rationally requires a person to show >> how Lisa Randall is wrong? The same with Sorli in Slovenia. On the other >> hand if you don't like beer, nobody is going to make you like beer. Are you >> obligated to enter into endless discussions concerning assertions on >> physics that you know to be wrong? Naw. Most days, I just don't have the >> interest in purported, dark-matter life, anymore than I have the interest >> in angels. From our limited perspective today in 2021, the likelihood of >> other civilizations appears remote to the point of having become >> uninteresting. Refuting may best be done by lawyers, but dismissing your >> colleagues' works seems much more sketchy. >> > > That's upside down. When making non-standard assertions the burden of > proof lies with those that make the claims. There are always unknown > phenomena, which doesn't count as evidence. The existence of angels/dark > matter entities is not something one can simply invert by saying "well, > prove me wrong", unless one lives and is totally enchanted by local little > internet/social-media bubbles. If you need lawyers for refutation and are > irritated by sketchy behavior, then the suggestion to avoid the internet is > appropriate. Because along those lines, you now have to believe in dark > matter angels or pay a lawyer to refute it for you. Otherwise you may seem > much more sketchy yourself. > > James Wright > Right, and on top of it I do not have and neither does anyone else have the time or the energy to refute every knucklehead who promotes this sort of balderdash. That would become a full-time job. A sufficiently grounded undergraduate student in physics at the junior level should clock this stuff below as total nonsense. It does not require an exhaustive review, it is just thrown out. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/83e2bf54-698d-4279-8d59-fb50f30d28b7n%40googlegroups.com.
RE: Dark-Matter Universe?
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com Everything List Subject: Re: Dark-Matter Universe? [Philip Benjamin] What is dark-matter is not the issue here! That is for physics to determine. The moment physicists speak of dark-matter universe, then it is the domain of chemistry also. No chemistry, no universe. One's world views on energy, matter etc. are irrelevant from a scientific point of view. IF, that is a big IF for science, any invisible being exist that OUGHT to be made of invisible matter with its own chemistry which it is not unreasonable to assume a course parallel to light=matter chemistry. Philip Benjamin On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 9:53:26 PM UTC+2 spudb...@aol.com<mailto:spudb...@aol.com> wrote: Sorry LC, you as a physicist probably don't have time or interest to answer PB's assertions, but refutation rationally requires a person to show how Lisa Randall is wrong? The same with Sorli in Slovenia. On the other hand if you don't like beer, nobody is going to make you like beer. Are you obligated to enter into endless discussions concerning assertions on physics that you know to be wrong? Naw. Most days, I just don't have the interest in purported, dark-matter life, anymore than I have the interest in angels. From our limited perspective today in 2021, the likelihood of other civilizations appears remote to the point of having become uninteresting. Refuting may best be done by lawyers, but dismissing your colleagues' works seems much more sketchy. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/SJ0PR14MB5264A36A35C2EB642D668283A8849%40SJ0PR14MB5264.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.
Re: Dark-Matter Universe?
On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 9:53:26 PM UTC+2 spudb...@aol.com wrote: > Sorry LC, you as a physicist probably don't have time or interest to > answer PB's assertions, but refutation rationally requires a person to show > how Lisa Randall is wrong? The same with Sorli in Slovenia. On the other > hand if you don't like beer, nobody is going to make you like beer. Are you > obligated to enter into endless discussions concerning assertions on > physics that you know to be wrong? Naw. Most days, I just don't have the > interest in purported, dark-matter life, anymore than I have the interest > in angels. From our limited perspective today in 2021, the likelihood of > other civilizations appears remote to the point of having become > uninteresting. Refuting may best be done by lawyers, but dismissing your > colleagues' works seems much more sketchy. > That's upside down. When making non-standard assertions the burden of proof lies with those that make the claims. There are always unknown phenomena, which doesn't count as evidence. The existence of angels/dark matter entities is not something one can simply invert by saying "well, prove me wrong", unless one lives and is totally enchanted by local little internet/social-media bubbles. If you need lawyers for refutation and are irritated by sketchy behavior, then the suggestion to avoid the internet is appropriate. Because along those lines, you now have to believe in dark matter angels or pay a lawyer to refute it for you. Otherwise you may seem much more sketchy yourself. James Wright -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/75dd582e-8778-4560-84c6-fe2d1b67d855n%40googlegroups.com.
Re: Dark-Matter Universe?
Sorry LC, you as a physicist probably don't have time or interest to answer PB's assertions, but refutation rationally requires a person to show how Lisa Randall is wrong? The same with Sorli in Slovenia. On the other hand if you don't like beer, nobody is going to make you like beer. Are you obligated to enter into endless discussions concerning assertions on physics that you know to be wrong? Naw. Most days, I just don't have the interest in purported, dark-matter life, anymore than I have the interest in angels. From our limited perspective today in 2021, the likelihood of other civilizations appears remote to the point of having become uninteresting. Refuting may best be done by lawyers, but dismissing your colleagues' works seems much more sketchy. -Original Message- From: Lawrence Crowell To: Everything List Sent: Sun, Oct 24, 2021 4:01 pm Subject: Re: Dark-Matter Universe? This is absolute codswallop. LC On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 2:27:31 PM UTC-5 medinuclear wrote: [Philip Benjamin] Putative champions of dark-mater theoriesuse the term “dark-matter universe” without fully appreciating its implications http://cosmos.nautil.us/feature/134/does-dark-matter-harbor-life), Thisnecessarily requires more than application of physics to dark-matter per se. Universe involves life forms. Dark-matter universe is no exception. That also entails resonant dark-matter lives from the moment of conception -- bio dark-matter body vis-à-vis bio light-matter body. No chemistry, no life! What these theorists are focusing is the unknown astrophysical dark-matter. It needs be noted that the known astrophysical light-matter is largely ions of the most abundant elements of the universe-- H and He, while the biospherical light-matter consists of the 92+ elements of the Periodic Table. From symmetrical considerations, there may be a class of biospherical dark-matter which these these theorists hypothesize as “small fraction of dark matter” with the further remark that “it is definitely a worthwhile theory to explore, which has to be bio dark-matter chemistry of bio dark-matter atoms. Chemistry meanschemical bondswhich are spin-governed particle configurations of duets and octets. It is conceivable that the three flavors of neutrinos may be the counterparts of electrons, protons and neutrons. The masses of ν 1 and ν 2 are known to be close to one another (verisimilar to the close masses of p and n, while ν 3 weighs much less than the other two, such that the ratios of the masses of the neutrino flavors correspond to the ratios of the masses of e, p, n. Or. the dark matter atoms may consist of monopoles (N & S) and axions, all of negligible mass relative to electron mass, but with the same ratios as e, p, n. Empirical Evidences: 1 . Unidentified “Additional Mass of Life” for a living organism in a hermitically sealed system, which disappears at death as reported by Amrit S. Sorli, Scientific Research Centre BISTRA, Ptuj, Slovenia,http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary; doi=10.1.1.218.573; https://core.ac.uk/display/21767122. 2012, Journal of Theoretics Vol.4-2). 2 . Unidentified Source of biophotons. Dark and light chemical bonds have similar properties, interact with each other, rotate, vibrate, oscillate, have reciprocal motion, stretch, contract, have resonance structures, associate, dissociate, bend and break. These cause weak changes in energetics of thelight-matter chemical bonds, and result in emission of weak photons. They indeed exist and are known asbiophotons. Attributing the origin of that emission to DNA is flawed, since the standardizedrate of emission varies across the taxa by an order of magnitude though the DNA structures are the same. The sudden burst of biophotons at the moment of death of plant and animal cells results from the breaking of the coupling forces. OBE/NDE phenomena depend on the extent of “bond-dissociation”. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282154962_Bio_dark-Matter_Chemistry_Implicationshttps://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_spirit_our_energy_Is_spirit_dark_energyhttp://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm https://www.prlog.org/12085722-dr-philip-benjamin-explains-the-bio-chemistry-of-our-inner-selves-in-his-latest-book.html “Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit” Corollary:At the moment of conception both light and dark twins in resonance are cocreated. The former is electric, entropic and unenduring. The latter is non-electric, non-entropic and enduring. Resonance is rudimentary recognition. That may be the basis of self-awareness. That means the application of universal laws of chemistry (chemical bonds= spin governed particle configurations of duets and octets). The resonant twins of bio light-matter and bio dark-matter bodies are cocreated at the mo
Re: Dark-Matter Universe?
This is absolute codswallop. LC On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 2:27:31 PM UTC-5 medinuclear wrote: > [*Philip Benjamin*] > > Putative champions of dark-mater theories use the term “dark-matter > universe” without fully appreciating its implications > *http://cosmos.nautil.us/feature/134/does-dark-matter-harbor-life > <http://cosmos.nautil.us/feature/134/does-dark-matter-harbor-life>*), > This *necessarily* requires more than application of physics to *dark-matter > per se*. Universe involves life forms. Dark-matter universe is no > exception. That also entails resonant dark-matter lives from the moment of > conception -- bio dark-matter body vis-à-vis bio light-matter body. No > chemistry, no life! > > What these theorists are focusing is the unknown astrophysical > dark-matter. It needs be noted that the known astrophysical light-matter is > largely ions of the most abundant elements of the universe-- H and He, > while the biospherical light-matter consists of the 92+ elements of the > Periodic Table. From symmetrical considerations, there may be a class of > biospherical dark-matter which these these theorists hypothesize as “small > fraction of dark matter” with the further remark that “it is definitely a > worthwhile theory to explore, which has to be bio dark-matter chemistry of > bio dark-matter atoms. Chemistry means *chemical bonds* which are > spin-governed particle configurations of *duets* and *octets*. It is > conceivable that the three flavors of neutrinos may be the counterparts of > electrons, protons and neutrons. The masses of ν 1 and ν 2 are known to be > close to one another (verisimilar to the close masses of p and n, while ν 3 > weighs much less than the other two, such that the ratios of the masses of > the neutrino flavors correspond to the ratios of the masses of e, p, n. Or. > the dark matter atoms may consist of monopoles (N & S) and axions, all of > negligible mass relative to electron mass, but with the same ratios as e, > p, n. > > *Empirical Evidences:* > > * 1 . Unidentified “Additional Mass of Life*” for a living organism > in a hermitically sealed system, which disappears at death as reported by > Amrit S. Sorli, Scientific Research Centre BISTRA, Ptuj, Slovenia, > http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary; doi=10.1.1.218.573; > https://core.ac.uk/display/21767122. 2012, Journal of Theoretics > Vol.4-2). > > * 2 . Unidentified Source of biophotons. * > > Dark and light chemical bonds have similar properties, interact > with each other, rotate, vibrate, oscillate, have reciprocal motion, > stretch, contract, have resonance structures, associate, dissociate, bend > and break. These cause weak changes in energetics of the *light-matter > chemical bonds,* and result in emission of weak photons. They indeed > exist and are known as *biophotons*. Attributing the origin of that > emission to DNA is flawed, since the standardized *rate* of emission > varies across the taxa by an order of magnitude though the DNA structures > are the same. The sudden burst of biophotons at the moment of death of > plant and animal cells results from the breaking of the coupling forces. > OBE/NDE phenomena depend on the extent of “bond-dissociation”. > > > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282154962_Bio_dark-Matter_Chemistry_Implications > > https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_spirit_our_energy_Is_spirit_dark_energy > > http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm > > > > > https://www.prlog.org/12085722-dr-philip-benjamin-explains-the-bio-chemistry-of-our-inner-selves-in-his-latest-book.html > > “Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit” > > *Corollary: * > > At the moment of conception both light and dark twins in resonance > are cocreated. The former is electric, entropic and unenduring. The latter > is non-electric, non-entropic and enduring. Resonance is rudimentary > recognition. That may be the basis of self-awareness. > > That means the application of universal laws of chemistry > (chemical bonds= spin governed particle configurations of duets and > octets). The resonant twins of bio light-matter and bio dark-matter bodies > are cocreated at the moment of conception. For the sake of symmetry, the > former is electric, entropic and non-enduring; the latter is non-electric, > non-entropic and enduring. Resonance is rudimentary recognition. It may be > the basis of self-awareness of conscious beings. Consciousness itself must > be an integral part of an enduring but dormant bio dark-matter body. The > dormancy
Dark-Matter Universe?
[Philip Benjamin] Putative champions of dark-mater theories use the term “dark-matter universe” without fully appreciating its implications http://cosmos.nautil.us/feature/134/does-dark-matter-harbor-life), This necessarily requires more than application of physics to dark-matter per se. Universe involves life forms. Dark-matter universe is no exception. That also entails resonant dark-matter lives from the moment of conception -- bio dark-matter body vis-à-vis bio light-matter body. No chemistry, no life! What these theorists are focusing is the unknown astrophysical dark-matter. It needs be noted that the known astrophysical light-matter is largely ions of the most abundant elements of the universe-- H and He, while the biospherical light-matter consists of the 92+ elements of the Periodic Table. From symmetrical considerations, there may be a class of biospherical dark-matter which these these theorists hypothesize as “small fraction of dark matter” with the further remark that “it is definitely a worthwhile theory to explore, which has to be bio dark-matter chemistry of bio dark-matter atoms. Chemistry means chemical bonds which are spin-governed particle configurations of duets and octets. It is conceivable that the three flavors of neutrinos may be the counterparts of electrons, protons and neutrons. The masses of ν 1 and ν 2 are known to be close to one another (verisimilar to the close masses of p and n, while ν 3 weighs much less than the other two, such that the ratios of the masses of the neutrino flavors correspond to the ratios of the masses of e, p, n. Or. the dark matter atoms may consist of monopoles (N & S) and axions, all of negligible mass relative to electron mass, but with the same ratios as e, p, n. Empirical Evidences: 1 . Unidentified “Additional Mass of Life” for a living organism in a hermitically sealed system, which disappears at death as reported by Amrit S. Sorli, Scientific Research Centre BISTRA, Ptuj, Slovenia, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary; doi=10.1.1.218.573; https://core.ac.uk/display/21767122. 2012, Journal of Theoretics Vol.4-2). 2 . Unidentified Source of biophotons. Dark and light chemical bonds have similar properties, interact with each other, rotate, vibrate, oscillate, have reciprocal motion, stretch, contract, have resonance structures, associate, dissociate, bend and break. These cause weak changes in energetics of the light-matter chemical bonds, and result in emission of weak photons. They indeed exist and are known as biophotons. Attributing the origin of that emission to DNA is flawed, since the standardized rate of emission varies across the taxa by an order of magnitude though the DNA structures are the same. The sudden burst of biophotons at the moment of death of plant and animal cells results from the breaking of the coupling forces. OBE/NDE phenomena depend on the extent of “bond-dissociation”. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282154962_Bio_dark-Matter_Chemistry_Implications https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_spirit_our_energy_Is_spirit_dark_energy http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm https://www.prlog.org/12085722-dr-philip-benjamin-explains-the-bio-chemistry-of-our-inner-selves-in-his-latest-book.html “Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit” Corollary: At the moment of conception both light and dark twins in resonance are cocreated. The former is electric, entropic and unenduring. The latter is non-electric, non-entropic and enduring. Resonance is rudimentary recognition. That may be the basis of self-awareness. That means the application of universal laws of chemistry (chemical bonds= spin governed particle configurations of duets and octets). The resonant twins of bio light-matter and bio dark-matter bodies are cocreated at the moment of conception. For the sake of symmetry, the former is electric, entropic and non-enduring; the latter is non-electric, non-entropic and enduring. Resonance is rudimentary recognition. It may be the basis of self-awareness of conscious beings. Consciousness itself must be an integral part of an enduring but dormant bio dark-matter body. The dormancy need be quickened or awakened by an external agency, as in the case of Augustine the chief architect of modern Western Civilization. Philip Benjamin CC. Harvard Center of Fundamental Laws of Nature & High Energy Theory. Notes: https://nautil.us/issue/48/chaos/does-dark-matter-harbor-life Does Dark Matter Harbor Life? An invisible civilization could be living right under your nose. BY LISA RANDALL https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/06/delving-into-dark-matter/ “Though dark matter is otherwise believed to be non-interacting, theoretical physicists Lisa Randall, the Frank B. Baird Jr. Professor of Science, and Matthew Reece, assistant professor of physics, earlier this ye
