Marius

Light is an electro-magnetic wave and has Energy (E=h*f) Like any wave, the light wave looses some of this energy as it passes vast distances of space (due to interactions with free electrons, plasma, gas clouds, and so on). As it looses energy, its frequency automatically decreases- because E=h*f, where h= constant (of Planck) As its frequency decreases, light is shifted to red- because red light has the lowest frequency of the visible light spectrum. Therefore, Hubble's interpretation of galactic redshift as a Doppler effect/recessional velocity is wrong. The universe is NOT expanding and modern cosmology is in an universal error of intergalactic proportions ever since.

If the space in our solar system is curved by the sun's mass, and planets orbit on said curvature of space-time, then how is it possible that the planets orbit in the same plane ? Which is flat. If Einsteins theory is correct, then no such flat plane should exist in our solar system. And the planets orbits should be on a curved space instead of a flat space, with their orbits stacked one on top the other as they fall deeper and deeper in the 'curvature of space-time'. Like in the illustration below where I added two more orbits to see how they stack up (the original only had one, and I cannot for the life of me find an illustration of GR with more than one planet/orbit)

Unseen normal baryionic matter is gas. But that is not what that Harvard scientist wrote. He clearly wrote that DM is non-baryionic, and that gas is made of baryions so it cannot be dark matter, but like I said that was HIS illogical and unfounded opinion. He clearly makes a difference between baryonic matter as being normal matter, and the rest (non-baryionic) being dark matter. Which makes no sense what so ever, as electrons, neutrinos are non-barions and are not considered as dark matter. I think he would more than likely agree with his own theory, that dark matter is made of gas, especially when this gas has been proven to exist in huge amounts as he predicted. Quote What are those unsupported historionics ? If gravitational lensing is an effect created by the curvature of space around massive objects, like the sun, then this effect should also be visible beyond the sun's corona, which is an actual part of the sun. No such effects have been observed. (in our solar system, that is) If the universe expands then why are galaxy clusters colliding with each other ? And why do not galaxies appear to be smaller and smaller if they are moving farther and farther away from us at these incredible speeds ? If some distant galaxies are moving away from us at over light speed, how is the light traveling through a space that is expanding faster than it can travel ? How does that light even reach us ? If a car is traveling at 100km/h on a street that is expanding with 200km/h in the opposite direction, how will it ever get to the other end of the road ? Today's current data on non-baryonic DM is contradictory and doesnt allign with anything, especially with the missing baryion problem. If there is a missing baryion problem in the universe, and a missing matter or dark matter in galaxies, this can only imply that the dark matter is baryionic in nature. Otherwise, by stating that dark matter (which allegedly makes up 85% of all matter) is non-baryionic, this only further enhances the missing baryion problem, to a point where it cannot logically be solved, or found. Because it generates a paradox, which is that you expect to find the missing baryionic matter in an ocean of non-baryionic dark matter. Which makes no sense what so ever. So if there is a discrepancy of 2 to 1 of baryionic matter from the early universe to the current universe, then how do you expect to ever find it, when you assume 85% of all matter is non-baryionic (dark matter) ? That means baryionic is fixed at 15 % since non-baryonic is fixed at 85 %, and there is no way to ever find more baryonic matter ! Because you set the ratio of non-baryionic matter in such a way there is no room for increasing the baryionic one to 30% (as was in the early universe), which makes finding the missing baryion matter a logical imposibility.

No non-baryionic dark matter effects have been observed either (all experiments failed to show these effects), that doesnt stop scientists and crackheads believe fairy dust is real and makes up 85% of the matter in the universe. Can I at least have the same treatment ? Thanks. So that means that Fritz Zwicky, who invented the term Dark Matter, was uneducated as well, because that gas theory is his not mine ! I find it amusing that scientists who obviously confirmed his theory, by detecting that huge amount of gas he predicted to be the missing or dark matter, are also the ones who infirm it, by inventing a lame excuse like 'but its baryionic matter'- which has no relevance whatsoever, as Zwicky never said it has to be non-baryionic, and it makes no difference if the missing dark matter is baryonic or non-baryionic, or both. They probably just added that part to get funds for countless failed experiments in search of their non-baryonic fairy dust.

If you dont have any misconceptions about 'dark matter', then it could represent the same thing. I don't see why dark matter can't be baryonic matter, like gas, when Fritz Zwicky himself thought of it as such ? The incorrect conclusions are on the part of those who assume or conclude that dark matter MUST BE non-baryionic matter. Because they say so, after they say that they don't know what dark matter is. And after ALL experiments failed to prove that such non-baryionic dark matter does indeed exist. The article you quoted is not the word of God, its just the unfounded opinion of a Harvard scientist who I have never heard of. But about Fritz Zwicky I have heard, and he theoretised that Dark Matter is a gas halo which envelops the galaxy ! So now when they actually find the gas halo that he predicted to be the mysterious dark matter, they say that it has nothing to do with dark matter ? It has EVERYTHING to do with dark matter, as that WAS THE PREDICTION of what dark matter is, by the guy who coined the term dark matter when this pseudo-savant wasnt even born. I cannot believe how illogical and ignorant that scientist is, and if all are like him then its no wonder why modern cosmology is in crisis after crisis after crisis...because this article he wrote is beyond stupid, its borderline retarded. He has no proof that non-baryionic dark matter exists, no empirical evidence based on experiments. Yet he stubbornly insists that it exists, and that it is the real deal. So who's the crackpot, delusional pseudo-scientist who believes in fairy dust despite a total lack of evidence ? Certainly not Zwicky. Because his theoretised gas halo of Dunkle Materie has proved to be real, but this crackpot still believes in fairy dust for some (illogical) reason.

And if you've read my original post that is exactly what I concluded, except the wave involved is not the electron, it is the wave generated by the moving electron, and/or by the electron gun which releases an EM wave everytime it fires an electron, or photoelectron, via the photoelectric effect. Sorry, I meant Planks. How is light not propagating like a wave, when he literally copy pasted Plank's wave equation to describe those discrete energy packets ? And when his photon particle has no mass, just like a wave, and has frequency and period, just like a wave ? Talking about semantics, just because he names the wave in some other way doesnt mean he discovered anything. The photolelectric effect was already known, it just couldnt be explained well with classical electromagnetics. But Einstein's 'explanation' is contradictory and ridiculous, as he just names the wave of light in some other way and proposes it is propagating like a particle when the equation he uses is still that of a wave.

SO A FEW YEARS AGO NASA DISCOVERED THERE IS A HUMONGUOUS 10 MILLION-DEGREE HALO OF GAS ENVELOPING THE MILKY WAY: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/multimedia/hot_gas_halo.html If you look at the illustration, it looks exactly like the hypothetical dark matter halo. Except this one is real. They even say that 'it might be a solution to the missing baryon problem'. Well done Nasa. You finally confirmed Frank Zwicky's gas theory.(that was his vision of 'dark matter', not the current view which is plain sci-fi) And you also disproved Einsteins relativity theory. So long 'gravitational lensing'. Its now clear that it is this super massive super heated gas which distorts or bends the light around galaxies. In the same way the gas from the suns corona does the same thing. And I believe this also disproves Hubbles expansion theory, which is kind of based on Einsteins relativity (altough Einstein got a contracting universe when he solved his equations, but these are 'minor details', as is the 'cosmological constant' that he inserted to 'fix the problem' and achieve a static, not an expanding universe), and on Doppler redshift due to recessional velocity. This gas halo, unlike dark matter, interracts with light. And, besides distorting it and creating the so called 'gravitational lensing', it also absorbs and scatters light. But since blue light has a higher frequency than red light, it gets more absorbed/scattered than redlight. That is why most galaxies appear red shifted. It has nothing to do with their 'recessional velocity' ! But with this gas halo which absorbs the blue light, or blocks it from getting out and reaching us. They even made it blue to show the effect ! Well done, Nasa, well done.

That's right, they fired one electron at a time and the wave pattern appeared after they fired many of them, one at a time...but when they fire just one there is no wave pattern, its just a dot on the wall. The milestone was that previously they were not able to fire individual electrons, as the electron gun fired waves of electrons at a time. That is because photons are not actually particles. The photon equation clearly describes a wave, with frequency and period. E=hv=h*c/lamda, where v is frequency, and lambda is period. I dont understand why Einstein thought of them as particles, when he basically uses Maxwells wave equation. (or why would anyone give him a Nobel for saying that a wave is a particle, or for intelectual theft nonetheless)

Thanks for the tip, I dont want to loose the Nobel prize because of the font colour.

I am using a dark theme, and yellow on black is very easy to read.

For more than a century, the famous dual slit experiment (performed on particles such as electrons) has been baffling scientists who couldnt explain why the particles where 'behaving like waves', and invented an irrational 'particle-wave duality' to explain it. Most scientists take this 'explanation' for granted and mechanically repeat it, even if they assure us that they dont understand it. 'If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't understand quantum mechanics', as Feynman noted. The reason why they dont understand it is because it is illogical and contradictory. You cant understand a contradiction, because there is nothing to understand. This explanation is a non-explanation, because it does not 'explain' anything that anyone can understand. It is simply a wrong and irrational interpretation of the experiment, and it is at the foundation of quantum mechanics, which is why no one, including quantum physicists , really understands it. In their defense they say QM is 'weird', 'unreal', 'breaks reality', but in reality QM itself is broken, because its wrong. Reality breaks QM with logic, which science is in reality based on. Or, at least, should be based on. What all these physicists seem to miss is that the wave pattern seen on the wall when firing many electrons is just that, a wave pattern. When they fire only one electron no such wave pattern appears. There is no one electron=one wave correspondence. Therefore each individual electron is NOT behaving like a wave. They are behaving like PARTICLES in a wave. But in what wave ? Explanation 1: The first explanation is actually very simple and needs no particle-wave duality. In reality, there is no duality. The electron is a particle and behaves like a particle. But it behaves like a charged particle, not an ordinary particle. And what charged particles do when they accelerate ? They generate an EM field. So when they fire 'a single electron' at the slits, it is not just an electron that passes through the slits...it is an electron AND the EM wave that the electron generates as it moves. It is therefore the EM wave that interferres with itself at the slits, and creates an interferrence pattern, which simply 'derrailles' the electron on that wave pattern. Explanation 2: But what if the electron gun itself also generated an EM wave when it fired the electron ? It does ! The electron is fired by shooting ultraviolet light/laser light (a high energy EM wave) at some metal atoms, from which electrons are ejected. Well, that beam of light or EM wave can easily pass through both slits and hit the back wall in an interferrence pattern. But what happens when this high energy EM wave hits the wall ? It ejects electrons from the atoms which the wave hits, so now we have ionised or positively charged atoms (since they lack an electron or a negative charge) on the back wall that are arranged in a wave pattern. And then this negatively charged electron comes. And it is attracted or absorbed by one of those charged atoms, and cant go anywhere else other than some point/atom from the EM wave pattern. And everytime an electron is fired it will be attracted by a point/atom from that wave pattern. So this could also explain why in the end we see the individual electrons/particles arranged in a wave pattern. Then when they add the which way detector they shoot another wave of light at the slits which interferres with the other wave and collapses the wave pattern; it has nothing to do with 'the act of measuring', or 'observing', but with the physical process/intervention that is required to do the measuring, which introduces another EM wave in the mix.