Mike Carrell beat me to throwing the Occam's Razor card on the table. Perhaps both Mike and I are tuned to the same polarized Vort Collective sub frequency channel. In any case, here's my runner up post. I discuss the hydrinos saga from a slightly different angle, one that is probably less technical than Mike's.
* * * * * * * If 75% of all the visible mass we see in the universe is comprised of hydrogen, it doesn't strike me as that much of a heretical use of Occam's Razor to conjecture that perhaps the hydrogen atom may also have a 75% chance of explaining where Dark Matter originally came from. If we assume hydrogen was the first atom that initially came into existence after the so-called Big Bang event, if we assume hydrogen initially comprised almost entirely 100% of all the mass that belonged within the visible universe and from which all other visible elements were eventually forged from, why do so many physicist's flatly refuse to even consider the possibility that hydrogen might possibly beget hydrinos as well? For example, according to Wikipedia article on Blacklight Power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklight_Power In 1999, Princeton University's physics Nobel laureate Phillip Anderson said of [BLP], "If you could fuck around with the hydrogen atom, you could fuck around with the energy process in the sun. You could fuck around with life itself." "Everything we know about everything would be a bunch of nonsense. That's why I'm so sure that it's a fraud."[6] Perhaps a question we need to ask if whether Dark Matter sprang into existence simultaneously when hydrogen first began to form in the Early Universe, or did DM begin its mysterious appearance sometime afterwards, as hydrogen began to interact in mysterious ways with other elements. Alas, I suspect there doesn't exist an experiment capable of measuring whether all the aggregate Dark Matter measured within the Universe is either increasing, decreasing, or maintaining a steady state. Wouldn't it be interesting if we could measure such a value? What would that imply? Meanwhile being the great Gatsby for which "the Doctor" strikes me as playing to a Tee - according to Mills' grand theory on the origins of the Universe, there never was an explosive-like Big Bang event. Mills' theory conjectures that we live within an endless sine wave-like oscillating Universe that slowly expands, and then slowly contracts. I think each Grand Cycle takes uber billions or is that gaJillions of years to complete. According to Mills' theory, we are pretty close to the beginning of the next expansion phase of the cycle. Perhaps that helps to conveniently account for recently verified astronomical observations that imply that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. I bet L. Ron Hubbard would have loved embracing such a grand cycle. "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion." L. Ron Hubbard http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard Regards Steven Vincent Johnson Svjart.orionworks.com Zazzle.com/orionworks
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
