Supercomputer comes up with a profile of dark matter: Standard Model extension predicts properties of candidate particle

November 2, 2016, Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron
Simulated distribution of dark matter approximately three billion years after the Big Bang (illustration not from this work). Credit: The Virgo Consortium/Alexandre Amblard/ESA

In the search for the mysterious dark matter, physicists have used elaborate computer calculations to come up with an outline of the particles of this unknown form of matter. To do this, the scientists extended the successful Standard Model of particle physics which allowed them, among other things, to predict the mass of so-called axions, promising candidates for dark matter. The German-Hungarian team of researchers led by Professor Zoltán Fodor of the University of Wuppertal, Eötvös University in Budapest and Forschungszentrum Jülich carried out its calculations on Jülich's supercomputer JUQUEEN (BlueGene/Q) and presents its results in the journal Nature.

"Dark matter is an invisible form of matter which until now has only revealed itself through its gravitational effects. What it consists of remains a complete mystery," explains co-author Dr Andreas Ringwald, who is based at DESY and who proposed the current research. Evidence for the existence of this form of matter comes, among other things, from the astrophysical observation of galaxies, which rotate far too rapidly to be held together only by the gravitational pull of the . High-precision measurements using the European satellite "Planck" show that almost 85 percent of the entire mass of the universe consists of dark matter. All the stars, planets, nebulae and other objects in space that are made of conventional matter account for no more than 15 percent of the mass of the universe.

"The adjective 'dark' does not simply mean that it does not emit visible light," says Ringwald. "It does not appear to give off any other wavelengths either - its interaction with photons must be very weak indeed." For decades, physicists have been searching for particles of this new type of matter. What is clear is that these particles must lie beyond the Standard Model of particle physics, and while that model is extremely successful, it currently only describes the conventional 15 percent of all matter in the cosmos. From theoretically possible extensions to the Standard Model physicists not only expect a deeper understanding of the universe, but also concrete clues in what energy range it is particularly worthwhile looking for dark-matter candidates.

The unknown form of matter can either consist of comparatively few, but very heavy particles, or of a large number of light ones. The direct searches for heavy dark-matter candidates using large detectors in underground laboratories and the indirect search for them using large particle accelerators are still going on, but have not turned up any so far. A range of physical considerations make extremely light particles, dubbed axions, very promising candidates. Using clever experimental setups, it might even be possible to detect direct evidence of them. "However, to find this kind of evidence it would be extremely helpful to know what kind of mass we are looking for," emphasises theoretical physicist Ringwald. "Otherwise the search could take decades, because one would have to scan far too large a range."

The existence of axions is predicted by an extension to quantum chromodynamics (QCD), the quantum theory that governs the , responsible for the nuclear force. The strong interaction is one of the four fundamental forces of nature alongside gravitation, electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force, which is responsible for radioactivity. "Theoretical considerations indicate that there are so-called topological quantum fluctuations in quantum chromodynamics, which ought to result in an observable violation of time reversal symmetry," explains Ringwald. This means that certain processes should differ depending on whether they are running forwards or backwards. However, no experiment has so far managed to demonstrate this effect.

The extension to quantum chromodynamics (QCD) restores the invariance of time reversals, but at the same time it predicts the existence of a very weakly interacting particle, the axion, whose properties, in particular its mass, depend on the strength of the topological quantum fluctuations. However, it takes modern supercomputers like Jülich's JUQUEEN to calculate the latter in the temperature range that is relevant in predicting the relative contribution of axions to the matter making up the universe. "On top of this, we had to develop new methods of analysis in order to achieve the required temperature range," notes Fodor who led the research.

The results show, among other things, that if axions do make up the bulk of dark matter, they should have a mass of 50 to 1500 micro-electronvolts, expressed in the customary units of , and thus be up to ten billion times lighter than electrons. This would require every cubic centimetre of the universe to contain on average ten million such ultra-lightweight particles. Dark matter is not spread out evenly in the universe, however, but forms clumps and branches of a weblike network. Because of this, our local region of the Milky Way should contain about one trillion axions per cubic centimetre.

Thanks to the Jülich supercomputer, the calculations now provide physicists with a concrete range in which their search for axions is likely to be most promising. "The results we are presenting will probably lead to a race to discover these particles," says Fodor. Their discovery would not only solve the problem of in the universe, but at the same time answer the question why the strong interaction is so surprisingly symmetrical with respect to time reversal. The scientists expect that it will be possible within the next few years to either confirm or rule out the existence of axions experimentally.

The Institute for Nuclear Research of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in Debrecen, the Lendület Lattice Gauge Theory Research Group at the Eötvös University, the University of Zaragoza in Spain, and the Max Planck Institute for Physics in Munich were also involved in the research.

Explore further: 3 knowns and 3 unknowns about dark matter

More information: S. Borsanyi et al, Calculation of the axion mass based on high-temperature lattice quantum chromodynamics, Nature (2016). DOI: 10.1038/nature20115

Related Stories

Team simulates a magnetar to seek dark matter particle

October 7, 2016

MIT physicists are proposing a new experiment to detect a dark matter particle called the axion. If successful, the effort could crack one of the most perplexing unsolved mysteries in particle physics, as well as finally ...

Bright sparks shed new light on the dark matter riddle

February 1, 2016

The origin of matter in the universe has puzzled physicists for generations. Today, we know that matter only accounts for 5% of our universe; another 25% is constituted of dark matter. And the remaining 70% is made up of ...

Recommended for you

Quantum sound waves to open doors for more powerful sensors

November 22, 2018

For the last decade, scientists have been making giant leaps in their ability to build and control systems based on the bizarre rules of quantum mechanics, which describe the behavior of particles at the subatomic scale.

Radical approach for brighter LEDs

November 21, 2018

Scientists have discovered that semiconducting molecules with unpaired electrons, termed 'radicals' can be used to fabricate very efficient organic-light-emitting diodes (OLEDs), exploiting their quantum mechanical 'spin' ...

New device for symmetry-breaking-induced optical nonlinearity

November 21, 2018

Second-order nonlinear optical processes play a pivotal role in both classical and quantum applications, ranging from extension of the accessible frequencies to generation of quantum entangled photon pairs and squeezed states. ...

Millimetre waves for the last mile

November 21, 2018

Reseachers at ETH Zurich have developed a modulator with which data transmitted via millimetre waves can be directly converted into light pulses for optical fibres. This could make covering the "last mile" up to the internet ...

76 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ursiny33
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2016
Just maybe gravitational pull has magnetic forces with it , in the magnetic attractions of mass in unbalanced charged particle constructions wear its dominant positive charge with negative minor charged particle constructions and the opposite of dominant negitive charge with minor positive charged construction of mass ,
Ralph
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2016
How can you search for a particle that is so light? And what do you expect it to interact with? Are these particles stable? If not, what is their lifetime?
NoStrings
2.5 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2016
One of the plausible conjectures, unlike supersymmetric non sequiturs. Worth investigating.
arom
Nov 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Reg Mundy
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 03, 2016
The evidence for Dark Matter seems to consist mainly of the need for it to exist if theories and laws about gravity are correct. Without gravity, what other evidence is there? I stand by my theory that gravity does not exist, and what we observe as "gravity" is an effect of expansion of ALL matter in the universe. Therefore, Dark Matter will never be found as it was only "invented" to sustain mistaken theories of gravity.
RNP
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 03, 2016
@Reg Mundy
The evidence for Dark Matter seems to consist mainly of the need for it to exist if theories and laws about gravity are correct. Without gravity, what other evidence is there? I stand by my theory that gravity does not exist, and what we observe as "gravity" is an effect of expansion of ALL matter in the universe. Therefore, Dark Matter will never be found as it was only "invented" to sustain mistaken theories of gravity.


As to your "theory that gravity does not exist": Please expain how you think the expansion of matter in the universe causes "what we observe as gravity"?

@Benni
Are you agreeing that "gravity does not exist"?. If so, can you justify the claim? If not, why are you supporting such nonsense and what are your explanations for the observational evidence used to justify dark matter?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (7) Nov 03, 2016
@RNP
If ALL matter in the universe is expanding (including you, the observer), the expansion would not be observable. But the acceleration on the surface of an expanding Earth will manifest with the effect you perceive as "gravity". Newton got it wrong, the apple did not fall on his head, it was in freefall, his head was accelerated by the Earth up to hit it. (OK, I know its an apocryphal tale, don't bother pointing it out...)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Nov 03, 2016
Hi Reg. :)
@RNP
If ALL matter in the universe is expanding (including you, the observer), the expansion would not be observable. But the acceleration on the surface of an expanding Earth will manifest with the effect you perceive as "gravity". Newton got it wrong, the apple did not fall on his head, it was in freefall, his head was accelerated by the Earth up to hit it. (OK, I know its an apocryphal tale, don't bother pointing it out...)
I'm curious, mate.

In your scenario:

1) How does the satellite remain at much the same distance from Earth's center for some time without the Earth expanding to meet it there?

2) What made that ' apple' move 'away from' the tree branch once it was free?

3) While still attached to its tree, does that apple's surface, itself, expand 'reciprocally' (at its own respective 'gravity rate') towards the Earth's expanding surface?

Forgive me if similar questions were asked before and I missed your answers. Thanks. :)
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2016
What is clear is that these particles must lie beyond the Standard Model of particle physics, and while that model is extremely successful, it currently only describes the conventional 15 percent of all matter in the cosmos.

It's an "extremely successful" model even though 85% of the Universe is missing. Laughable to say the least.

Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 03, 2016
@phys.org

Don't you see the risk of giving Phys 1 this type of irrationalism a platform?
Isn't it your responsibility to impose some form of moderation ?
..........Yeah, like your persistently foul mouth.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2016
@Fizz
Oh Dear, I can only assume you were having another foam-at-the-mouth session re my above comment, but were so foul-mouthed the moderator stepped in. Please, Fizz, contain yourself for a moment, and actually consider what I am saying. A good number of your erstwhile cohorts are coming round to my way of thinking.....
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (7) Nov 03, 2016
@RC
1. No gravity, so why should the satellite remain at the same distance? It is flying away, but as the distance increases and the Earth and Moon increase in size, subjectively it remains at the same distance (I assume you are talking circular orbits). I explain how this works in great detail with diagrams in https://www.amazo...+gravity
but cannot do it here.
2. The tree is attached to Earth's surface, and is therefore accelerating. It pulls the apple with it until the stalk breaks.....
3. Yes.
Forgive me if similar questions were asked before and I missed your answers. Thanks. :)

Yes, I have answered these questions before, and many more. But to understand why these theories are so, you have to understand the whole picture, which includes the nature of TIME itself.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2016
....as the distance increases and the Earth and Moon increase in size, subjectively it remains at the same distance
What causes Earth & Moon to increase in size? An increase in MASS? Or just an increase in distance between particles making up the already existing GIVEN MASS?

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2016
....as the distance increases and the Earth and Moon increase in size, subjectively it remains at the same distance
What causes Earth & Moon to increase in size? An increase in MASS? Or just an increase in distance between particles making up the already existing GIVEN MASS?

imagination...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2016
Hi Reg. :)

Thanks for the link; but unfortunately I have a customized system to greatly restrict what sites I can visit (for security reasons), so I cannot access your explanations there. Anyhow, after your above reply, I have further questions re those same examples, respectively:

1) How would your scenario affect (if at all) the Lagrange Point between Earth-Moon?...and would a satellite there also be expanding away from/towards both bodies?

2) Once the apple stem is cut, the apple should keep the inertial motion it had at moment of relese from tree's expanding motion with the Earth's surface; so what causes the apple to stop and allow Earth surface to expand to meet it?

3) Does that mean if tree didn't increase in height as it grew, then a permanently affixed apple 'tied onto' its branch would (eventually) expand to meet the expanding surface of Earth?

Sorry if the above queries have been asked/answered before, but I haven't come across same before now. Thanks. :)
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 03, 2016
If ALL matter in the universe is expanding (including you, the observer), the expansion would not be observable
@regTROLL
1- you're SPAMMING again with the "buy my book" link

2- you specifically said the rate of expansion is mass dependent
the acceleration depends on the mass
http://phys.org/n...ong.html

therefore two unequal mass objects that are the same size will eventually grow disproportionately, making an observable and testable means to check your belief (it's not a model, hypothesis or theory since it's already falsified)

3- if there isn't "gravity" and it's all "expansion" then you can't explain other things like:
tides
orbits around massive objects
any curved trajectory where nothing visible acts on the object to redirect it
gravitational lensing

you can't answer any of those without using gravity as well as expansion, and that means your expansion is worthless because gravity explains it already
Ojorf
Nov 04, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2016
@Benni
....as the distance increases and the Earth and Moon increase in size, subjectively it remains at the same distance
What causes Earth & Moon to increase in size? An increase in MASS? Or just an increase in distance between particles making up the already existing GIVEN MASS?


All fundamental particles are expanding (lets say for argument, doubling in size) for every quantum of time. All mass remains the same (subjectively).
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Nov 04, 2016
@RC
1. No effect, and yes.
2. Apple ceases to accelerate with Earth surface but carries on at same velocity as the surface of the Earth had at the moment of separation (ignoring atmospheric effects).
3. No. Apart from any effect of the tree growing, it is expanding (all fundamental particles are expanding) so subjectively everything remains the same.
Incidentally, after our previous exchange I took Fizz off my ignore list only to find all his comments are now being removed by the moderator! Anyway, I have left Cap'n Strumpo and Irate on my ignore list, as I assume their comments are the same as before, i.e. stupid unthinking vituperation wopped up to 5s by their own bot voting and sock puppet army. If in your opinion I am wrong and they have any valid questions, feel free to ask them, but I will not take them off my ignore list as they refuse to THINK.
@WiningG
Yup! Its all subjective.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2016
Huh. They failed to mention the hydrino as a potential dark matter candidate.

I am sure this was inadvertent.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 04, 2016
@phys.org
Don't you see that these people are defaming science and scientists?
Don't you see the risk of giving this type of irrationalism a platform?
Isn't it your responsibility to impose some form of moderation ?

ROTFLMAO, I'm not defaming science, I'm defaming pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo of DM and other fanciful pontifications of thought experimenters and mathematical gymnasts.

Are you fearful that their Ponzi scheme and endless graft be revealed on the layman?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Nov 05, 2016
Hi Reg, apologies for not getting back sooner; been very busy. Again, querying respectively:

1) If the space between moon and earth does not expand (ie, increase their separation distance), then their respective surfaces will eventually 'meet', won't they? And if a light signal from satellite at Lagrange point to both moon and earth, their respective detectors would both show a blueshift, which effectively means moon-earth surfaces are 'expanding towards each other', lse how to eplain the respective blueshifts in 'opposite directions' away from satellite/Lagrange point?

2) Assume no atmosphere, and TWO apples: a 'free' apple orbiting earth at same height as that other apple happened to be when it was detached from tree. The orbiting apple had no upward inertial momentum, but detached apple had momentum of 'expansion' upward due to its tree's upward expansion acceleration/speed (as previously agreed was the case).....continued next post....
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Nov 05, 2016
@ Reg:

cont...2)...so, if the 'orbiting' apple was stopped in its 'sideways' motion by 'soft' wall absorbing its sideways momentum just when it was 'besides' the 'detaching' apple (which still had its tree's previous upward momentum, as we agreed before), then 'stopped' (previously orbiting) apple, and 'detached from tree' (previously upward tree-accelerated) apple, should 'meet' the earth's surface at DIFFERENT times (because 'orbit' apple had NO 'upward' acceleration BUT 'detached' apple DID have an 'upward' momentum at moment of detachment). How is that consistent?

3) If there is no 'height' increase in tree 'growth' (but only upward 'expansion' height increase along with earth's surface); and the still attached apple's surface ITSELF is 'expanding' (becoming larger volume all-round NOT from internal 'biological' growth factors, but from your 'surface expansion' factor), then what is to prevent that apple's 'expanded surface eventually contacting earth surface?

:)
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Nov 06, 2016
@RC
1. It does expand, so they won't. No blueshift/redshift as photons are also expanding at the universal rate, so only shift due to motion.
2. How does it have an "upward momentum" at the moment of separation? It continues to travel in a straight line, as does the orbiting apple. This scenario is impossible, anyway, so move on.
3. Ignoring all "apparent" factors (tree/apple growth etc. Assume they are all made of an inert metal, for example), The tree is expanding. The apple is expanding. The Earth is expanding. You are expanding. The distance between the apple and the Earth is expanding. Subjectively, nothing changes.
Try to be a bit more imaginative in your questions, we are looking for a question to which the answer must illustrate a difference between expansion theory and the standard model.
The only one I can think of is the galactic rotation anomaly, which is consistent with expansion theory but inconsistent with current gravitational "laws".
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 06, 2016
@regTROLL
we are looking for a question to which the answer must illustrate a difference between expansion theory and the standard model
why is there evidence of gravitational waves if there is no such thing per your claims? (See: LIGO)

Why are there tides if there isn't gravity? (see: any tidal chart)

why are there orbits at all if there is no gravity to hold them in orbit? (See: solar system, galaxies, moons, etc)

why is it possible to see gravitational lensing if it's all just expansion?
why do you only provide evidence to those who are willing to pay you money for your "thoughts" that can't be proven?

why can't you actually answer with the same levels of evidence that the SM has, if you're so sure and you claim to be able to explain it with your book?

why do physicists and astrophysicists that have read your book claim its pseudoscience with no real content or evidence?

you're debunked-proven here: http://phys.org/n...ong.html
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 06, 2016
You should be studying physics instead
@Phys1
actually, i find human nature to be far more fascinating

take regTROLL
he wants to be famous for something, hence the writing of what he calls a "science book"...
but he can't actually conform to the rigidity of the scientific method, nor is he able to pass peer review, nor is he able to be objective (like some others)

science requires something more than "pay me $$ to read my book"

so how does one get "famous" for science while not being able to actually do science?

- they write about it! -

-its easy to have opinions on science
-writing about it is covered under free speech
-and no evidence is required other than "because" or "i'm published, therefore it's true" when you're the "author"

this is then used as argument from authority to those who don't know that any idiot can publish a book, blog, web-page etc

so it's a vicious circle of delusion, exactly like religious fanaticism
or conspiracists
Reg Mundy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 06, 2016
@CS
You made quite a study of that clown.
You should be studying physics instead :)

@Fizz
Thanks for promoting me to clown, that's a lot nicer than some of the things you usually call me! As for Strumpo studying Physics, wow, you do have a warped sense of humour! He hasn't the brains of a gnat, can't follow a logical argument, is rude and abusive to anyone who disagrees with him, and I pity you for considering him your friend - but I suppose birds of a feather flock together.... I see you are friends with Irate, too.
Well, I look forward to you discussing physics with Strumpo one day, I expect even an idiot like him can rise to your level of expertise in a couple of weeks.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 06, 2016
I expect even an idiot like him can rise to your level of expertise in a couple of weeks.
....."weeks"?Minutes.....hours at the most.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2016
so how does one get "famous" for science

The way one becomes famous in science is...by not trying to be famous (but doing good scientific work)

How to tell if someone will never be famous in science? Anyone who is talking about how he'll be famous.

The reason is: In order to be famous/respected you need the acknowledgement of your peers. And the thing in science is: anyone (of those peers...or basically anyone with the know how) can actually judge *objectively* that what you claim of yourself and your work is true.

...unlike in e.g. art or politics or religion where someone can claim a 'great work of art' ot 'superior ideology' or 'divine inspiration' and no one can tell with certainty whether they are right or are just telling complete bunk.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2016
so how does one get "famous" for science

The way one becomes famous in science is...by not trying to be famous (but doing good scientific work)

How to tell if someone will never be famous in science? Anyone who is talking about how he'll be famous.

The reason is: In order to be famous/respected you need the acknowledgement of your peers. And the thing in science is: anyone (of those peers...or basically anyone with the know how) can actually judge *objectively* that what you claim of yourself and your work is true.

...unlike in e.g. art or politics or religion where someone can claim a 'great work of art' ot 'superior ideology' or 'divine inspiration' and no one can tell with certainty whether they are right or are just telling complete bunk.
........everything you just put up is social network cough & gag material, not a thing about the substance of the topic of science under discussion.......I'm sure you'll 5 Star the Phys1 guy.

antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2016
.everything you just put up is social network cough & gag material,

It's based on my experience in the scientific world.
Example: Just two weeks ago I was at a conference and there it was also very evident. The people who got to hold the keynote speeches were those that actually did impressive work throughout their careers (and all of them presented it in a very humble way. Each of them presented the work, only, without ever stressing their own part in it but giving major props to the teams they collaborated with - especially in the panel discussion).

You would not believe how out-of-place anyone would be in that kind of arena if they were go "I did this...I did that" all the time in their presentations.

If you don't believe me you can watch the keynote presentations (they put them on youtube this year)
https://www.youtu...wevfeKYQ
https://www.youtu...CKrMXrnQ
https://www.youtu...LHCSm2rw
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2016
It's based on my experience in the scientific world.


......why would you think the CASUAL READER to this chatroom would care about your so-called "experience"?

You have been in this chatroom bragging about having sent your resume to Stumpy of all people, not exactly someone in whom the CASUAL READER would ever have great confidence as a career science professional. It's nothing less than desperation when you accede some of the most personal information of your life to the most foul mouthed piece of human debris this chatroom has ever experienced.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2016
why would you think the CASUAL READER to this chatroom would care about your so-called "experience"

Because reality beats fantasy? i know you don't hold with that...but most people do.

You have been in this chatroom bragging about having sent your resume to Stumpy of all people

Erm...no? I never did that. Where do you get that from?
(We conversed via mail and I showed him some of the stuff we did because he was interested)

to the most foul mouthed piece of human debris this chatroom has ever experienced.

Talking about yourself, now?
I find Captain Stumpy articulates (and substantiates!) his posts well. Something that can't be said about your posts. You just make up stuff (as you just did with the resume). I can't abide liars.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2016
having sent your resume to Stumpy of all people,
@BenjiTROLL
actually, no
he sent material to me that allowed me to validate who he was, along with validate the IP address being sent from, and in turn that meant i was able to research what he did for a living and learn about his education

so it wasn't about accepting his word like you want people to do here
nor was it about making a claim of expertise and then not being able to validate that with even cursory knowledge, like you regularly do (need i bring up your failures in basic math, basic physics or other "nuclear" physics fails? - i can link and prove with your own posts that you lie repeatedly)

so there is a huge difference

and it all centers around validation

oh, and this isn't a "chatroom" - this is a science news aggregate site that allows comments

most of the content is re-posted from other sources and sites
EnricM
not rated yet Nov 07, 2016
"Supercomputer comes up with..."

That's the sort of things that makes people think that computers (at least supercomputers) are something like the AI of the sci-fi books.

Of course, it's way cooler than "Bunch of boring scientists come up with theory using a supercomputer".

Benni
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2016
the most foul mouthed piece of human debris this chatroom has ever experienced.


I find Captain Stumpy articulates (and substantiates!) his posts well
...........sure says a lot about you doesn't it, that you treat him in so reverent a fashion using "Captain". "Captain" of what, some unending parade of even more human debris?

antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2016
.sure says a lot about you doesn't it, that you treat him in so reverent a fashion using "Captain". "Captain" of what, some unending parade of even more human debris?

It's his chosen nickname. Captain Stumpy. So I call him that. What esle should i call him? That's the point of these aliases.So you know who's who.
I call you Benni. Because you chose that name. Should I call you something else?

So, are you going to apologize for lying?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2016

Thanks for promoting me to clown, that's a lot nicer than some of the things you usually call me!

I usually call you a clown. Your shoes are a few sizes too large.

Not then, like you, getting too big for my boots?
percestyler
not rated yet Nov 10, 2016
One of the plausible conjectures, unlike supersymmetric non sequiturs. Worth investigating.


I agree, however "ten billion times lighter than electrons" is a bit of a stretch.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2016
Hi Reg. :)
It does expand, so they won't. No blueshift/redshift as photons are also expanding at the universal rate, so only shift due to motion.
Consider the Mössbauer_effect...

https://en.wikipe...redshift

That effect occurs either way (ie, Redshift if emitter below receiver; Blueshift if emitter above receiver). Now (unless Earth is accelerating upwards at the speed of light, then you say that) the shift is due to the photon's speed?

If so, can your explain how such shifts can arise (redshift going up; blueshift going down) in that experiment?

PS: My explanation involves energy-space density/condition DIFFERENCES between the respective positions along the vertical (Gravitational) 'gradient' RADIAL interval; which difference determines emitter/receiver reception/emission RATES; such that it is the emission/receiving rate differences that determine a-priori the 'mismatch' (shift). :)
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good, thanks for asking. But I am not happy with our election but I'll get over it. It was bad Cher, real bad.

PS: My explanation involves energy-space density/condition DIFFERENCES between the respective positions along the vertical (Gravitational) 'gradient' RADIAL interval; which difference determines emitter/receiver reception/emission RATES; such that it is the emission/receiving rate differences that determine a-priori the 'mismatch' (shift). :)


Don't leave out the """"""Volumetrications"""""" of the """""Directional Impetus"""" while you adding up your """"""Quantums Of Reality"""""".

It's important Cher, otherwise you might not get the right input from the """"""Fluid of secondary vacuum""""" (with or without the """Photonic looptrains criss-crossing willy-nilly through matter-free space, locally attached Electric and Magnetic fields are fixed to sink-matter core structures."""""

Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2016
@RC
Reg is a science clown, like his partner Benni.
You don't argue with a clown, you just wait for him to fall in a ditch or trip over his oversized shoes. :)

Yup, Fizz is too big for his boots....http://www.idioms...ots.html
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2016
Hi Reg. :)
It does expand, so they won't. No blueshift/redshift as photons are also expanding at the universal rate, so only shift due to motion.
Consider the Mössbauer_effect...
https://en.wikipe...redshift
That effect occurs either way (ie, Redshift if emitter below receiver; Blueshift if emitter above receiver). Now (unless Earth is accelerating upwards at the speed of light, then you say that) the shift is due to the photon's speed?

If so, can your explain how such shifts can arise (redshift going up; blueshift going down) in that experiment?

Emitter and receiver both accelerating along with surface of Earth. Receiver below transmitter- receiver accelerating towards photons. Receiver above emitter - receiver accelerating away from photons.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2016
Reg is a science clown, like his partner Benni
even clowns have followers
if you allow pseudoscience like reg or benni to spread then we end up with scientifically illiterate youth

so posting factual valid peer reviewed science is important
https://www.youtu...EwjBXlZE

ask reg the important questions:

why is there evidence of gravitational waves if there is no such thing per your claims? (See: LIGO)

Why are there tides if there isn't gravity? (see: any tidal chart)
prove how it works with expansion

why are there orbits at all if there is no gravity to hold them in orbit? (See: solar system, galaxies, moons, etc)

why is it possible to see gravitational lensing if it's all just expansion?

why do you only provide evidence to those who are willing to pay you money for your "thoughts" that can't be proven by experiment, evidence or even valid science?

there is more above that he still won't address,,,,
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2016
Hi Reg. :)

OK. Following question now indicated:

What is the supposed speed of Earth's (assumed constant?) expansion; and is it a large enough proportion of the doppler/speed effect/factor to produce the observed upwards/downwards 'shift' in a photon which is going at LIGHT speed?

While you consider that, I now pose a scenario NOT involving signals/velocities (doppler considerations) between emitter/receiver positions/processes; as follows:

Add identical clocks WITH TICK COUNTERS to emitter/receiver. Set counters to 'zero'. Slowly separate emitter/receiver to respective positions either way (ie, emitter above receiver or vice versa). Once in respective positions, both clock/counter systems are STARTED together. Leave for a YEAR. Then compare respective TICK COUNT TOTALS. The UPPER clock/counter shows many MORE TICKS than lower one (due to gravitational-well position effects ONLY, as NO MOTIONAL, ie, doppler, effects/factors involved).

Your 'expansion' explanation. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2016
ERRATA: Reg, the last sentence was a query; and should have ended with a "?" not a "."

Thanks. :)

PS: Again, please note well that emitter/receiver themselves have NOT been activated; so NO signals/motions are being detected/counted by the clock-counter systems; only respective clock tick rates cumulatively recorded in total number by the tick rate counters. Thanks. :)
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 12, 2016
@RC
What is the supposed speed of Earth's (assumed constant?) expansion; and is it a large enough proportion of the doppler/speed effect/factor to produce the observed upwards/downwards 'shift' in a photon which is going at LIGHT speed?

The increase in acceleration is constant, not the rate of expansion. If the Earth doubles in size in each quantum of time (obviously it doesn't!), after the Earth doubles in size, it doubles again. Also, the wavelength of the photon is increasing proportionally.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 12, 2016
@RC
Add identical clocks WITH TICK COUNTERS to emitter/receiver. Set counters to 'zero'. Slowly separate emitter/receiver to respective positions either way (ie, emitter above receiver or vice versa). Once in respective positions, both clock/counter systems are STARTED together. Leave for a YEAR. Then compare respective TICK COUNT TOTALS. The UPPER clock/counter shows many MORE TICKS than lower one (due to gravitational-well position effects ONLY, as NO MOTIONAL, ie, doppler, effects/factors involved).

Are the emitter and receiver in "free fall" or attached to the Earth? You would need to read https://www.amazo...+gravity (free on Kindle) to understand expansion theory, what movement/momentum/inertia really are, why time is different for moving objects (their movement is a component of expansion, relative to "stationary" objects). tbc
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 12, 2016
@RC
Think of matter as being composed of an almost infinite number of tiny gyroscopes. Acceleration requires energy just the same as pushing against an ordinary gyroscope, and once it is moving , it has momentum/inertia compared with the stationary observer. The reason time is different for the moving object is that (relative to the observer) the expansion of each elementary particle in the object is no longer spherical but elliptical, so a component of the expansion is diverted to apparent movement and ceases to contribute to time.
In the end, the only way to explain expansion theory and answer your questions is to type out "The Situation of Gravity" book in its entirety on this site, and life is too short for that.
Can you think of a question, the answer to which would be different for expansion theory and gravity? If you have the resources, you could run a simulation of a multi-body (n-body) problem using expansion theory and grtavity, substitute the solar system for the bodies
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 12, 2016
@RC contd.
and compare results. Ultimately, a simulation of the galaxy will show the correct rotation of the stars without DM if the theory is correct, but we need a lot of money and resource to do that.
We need a simpler question/experiment, which can be carried out in reality, not as a simulation.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Nov 12, 2016
Hi Reg. :)

Yes, the two are in fixed relative position one above the other (or vice vera) as per the usual Mossbauer setup. The only variation was the attachment of respective identical clocks/counters as described, and also leaving the emitter/receiver themselves un-activated, again as I described. Leaving the respective cumulative tick COUNTS as the only 'data set' to be compared after a year, again as described. Again I stress that NO actual 'signal/motion' data involved during one year's respective total cumulative tick counts, as described.

So, in that 'tick counts' experiment, as described, you have a straightforward scenario NOT complicated by any signal/motion considerations.

That represents a straightforward scenario which GR 'gravity-well' energy-space differences can 'explain'; but you have yet to explain it via your interpretation of 'gravitational phenomena/effects' as observed in above differing cumulative tick counts scenario.

Can you explain it, mate? :)
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 13, 2016
@RC
No, the effort involved is not commensurate with the reward. (The game is not worth the candle, if you prefer the classical expression....). Read my previous comments, and see if you can work it out for yourself.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2016
@pseudoscience reg
If you have the resources, you could run a simulation of a multi-body (n-body) problem using expansion theory and grtavity
so... your "expansion theory" requires gravity to work? (or should i say "grtavity" [sic]?)

you've said there aint no grtavity[sic], it's all expansion
so making a statement that it is both means you're not only wrong, but kinda stupid, even WRT your own pseudoscience
We need a simpler question/experiment, which can be carried out in reality
we have it - GR/SR
it's worked for both simulation and in reality (as tested to date) - it's testability and experimental validation makes it orders of magnitude more accurate than your expansion
...acceleration is constant
and mass dependent, as you claimed here: http://phys.org/n...ong.html

therefore testable with two similar sized objects of differing mass
there would be a proportional anomaly measured with simple observation

there isn't
you fail
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2016
Hi Reg. :)

I already tried. But it doesn't explain tick-count differences resulting in the tick-rate scenario/experiment described (which has no actual signals or significant 'differential motion' factors involved).

I DID allow for a 'minimal motion difference' component due to alleged differing 'expansion rates' acceleration between two clock-counters 'away from each other' due to different fixed position 'altitudes' above Earth's 'expanding' surface (allegedly taking BOTH of them 'upwards' with Earth's own radial expansion/acceleration)----[ Noted in passing: THAT supposed miniscule difference expansion motion factor would tend to 'expand' a photon BOTH ways, up AND down, in usual Mossbauer emitter/receiver 'runs', RED-shifting photon a 'little bit' EITHER way).

So 'fixed' clock-counters' 'total count' differences must correlate to respective LOCAL energy-space density/conditions at respective 'altitudes' affecting clock/tick rates differently; not 'motional' factors. :)
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2016
Wow, RC, you are really burning the midnight oil on this one..
If the two counters are in free-fall (not attached in any way to Earth) and remain the same distance apart (no relative velocity) the tick rates are the same. If they are attached to Earth, the constantly increasing acceleration due to expansion will cause red or blue shift and time differential. Photons expand at the same rate as all other matter.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2016
I shouldn't have done it, but I opened the last Strumpo comment out of curiousity despite him being on my ignore list. As I suspected, he is still the same stupid, obtuse as*h*le as always. I suggest running two simulations, one using expansion theory and the other gravity, and the dickhead concludes that I am stating that expansion theory requires gravity to work. I am sick and tired of pointing out to him that THERE IS NO GRAVITY!
Then, he goes on with
testable with two similar sized objects of differing mass
there would be a proportional anomaly measured with simple observation
His brain seems incapable of visualising two balls of equal size, one hollow and one solid (lets make them out of lead to help him), and you double the amount of lead but keep the same structure, why does he think one gets bigger than the other? Any basic physics book will explain to him how the expansion of a hole works, apart from the hole in his head.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Nov 15, 2016
Hi Reg. :)

I already had the gist of your theory; it differs from local energy-space effects compared to motional/accelerational effects due to your matter/energy/space 'expansion' scenario. I'm taking a few minutes out of my busy schedule because I'm curious to see where comparative scenarios physically/logically lead (an automatic reflex in my longstanding objective ToE theorizing/reality-referring process).
If the two counters are in free-fall (not attached in any way to Earth) and remain the same distance apart (no relative velocity) the tick rates are the same. If they are attached to Earth, the constantly increasing acceleration due to expansion will cause red or blue shift and time differential. Photons expand at the same rate as all other matter.
Yes, I already recognized/allowed for that, as per "Noted..." in my previous post.

Re 'free falling', if space 'expands' between differing 'altitude' locations, then they will have different accels/velocs, not same. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Nov 15, 2016
PS @ Reg...

I forgot to ask: Have you identified the "real effective physical mechanism" which causes said expansion of matter and space alike? I only ask because both SR and GR also lack such, and so also do not actually explain what 'effects' the motions/clock rates etc differences of bodies/energy in the 'space-time' abstract construct model. Speking of "expansion", I have a related question re "Inflation". Prof Steinhardt just showed it was nonsense hypothesis. Does that in any way affect the logical/physical basis for your "expansion" hypothesis/arguments?

PPS: Don't let the 'nasty man' and his irrelevant personal noise spoil your other polite and friendly discussions on the science. Good luck until next time, mate. :)

PPPS: Am still very busy; so I may 'disappear' soon for today without notice. If so, I will be back tomorrow or later when I can. Cheers. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2016
@reg PSEUDOSCIENCE TROLL
why does he think one gets bigger than the other?
if expansion is mass dependent
THEN
higher mass objects will expand faster than lower mass objects, per your own claims here: http://phys.org/n...ong.html

it would have to expand "faster" to give the "impression" of higher gravity
THEREFORE
if two objects were the same size
AND
one was made of silicon, H2, dirt, ice with air pockets... the other made of Iron, lead and dirt with no air pockets
THEN
per your admissions of mass dependent expansion
There is more mass ...therefore more acceleration at its surface
we can logically conclude that a higher mass object must expand faster
and two similar sized initial objects therefore must rapidly become disproportionate rather quickly, which is easily measured and observed (should expansion be the operating theory)

before you say "same number of atoms" - no, there isn't
more to the point, this is also testable
2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2016
@PSEUDOSCIENCE reg cont'd
so we can and have created two similar sized objects that have different masses and different atoms
where, then, is the requisite anomaly in measurement?

more to the point, we have objects in the solar system that are roughly the same size but wildly differing masses, why then is their size still so similar?

and to really drive that home: what, then, is the force or action which causes circular orbits, tides or other mentioned points you still have yet to provide data for here: http://phys.org/n...ong.html

or will you simply revert to your false pseudoscience argument of... let me quote you
Read a f******g book
because you can't actually validate your claims with any evidence other than your opinion?

yeah.. that's what i thought

you can't give evidence
you can't make a viable argument that isn't destroyed by basic logic and common sense

so you want people to pay $$ for your book to read.... what, exactly?

Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 16, 2016
@Strumpo
Once more, I go to the trouble of explaining why two objects the same size but of different densities would STILL be the same size if both of them double in size, but you just can't see it, can you? You are irredeemably stupid, and I have now put you back on my ignore list, so don't bother responding.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 16, 2016
@RC
Re 'free falling', if space 'expands' between differing 'altitude' locations, then they will have different accels/velocs, not same. :)

Like I asked, as you talk about altitude, are the altitudes fixed relative to the Eartrh or completely detached from it?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Nov 16, 2016
@RC
the "real effective physical mechanism" which causes said expansion of matter and space alike?................. Prof Steinhardt just showed it was nonsense hypothesis.

In my TOE all elementary particles are expanding, i.e. falling apart, even photons. Prof Steinhardt didn't "prove" anything, just stated his opinions. He and his colleagues completely neglect the fact that they (and all of us "observers") are also expanding, so perceptions are not of the underlying reality, i.e the situation in "Big Time" as opposed to our time. tbc
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Nov 16, 2016
@RC
In my TOE, our entire universe is a black hole, in which matter forms black holes which are themselves universes. Our universe is merely an evaporating black hole in a larger universe. In a black hole, all matter (including photons) is reduced to the elementary particles of non-matter (which in my TOE are + and - charges which are each one third of the charge of an electron, because that is the lowest charge we can discern in our universe (I call them tirds for fun, either a t+rd or a t-rd, you might prefer axions or ...). Matter is formed when two or more tirds enter orbits around each other (for example, a photon might be a t+rd and a t-rd). In nature, orbits are not stable, hence the expansion or annihilation of matter. Think of matter has many tiny gyroscopes, hence momentum/inertia, and the expansion of EVERY particle causing the expansion of matter resulting in "gravity" and increasing velocities of moving objects. Eventually, the elementary particles will disintegrate.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 16, 2016
@pseudoscience regTROLL
I go to the trouble of explaining
no, you didn't
I have now put you back on my ignore list, so don't bother responding
and i am still going to post and make you look like a complete idiot because you can't tell the difference between mass, weight and density

for starters: https://en.wikipe...iki/Mass

the mass and density of an iron ball that is 2 m in circumference is higher than the mass and density of the same sized Styrofoam ball

according to your mass dependent definition, the higher mass would accelerate faster due to it's differing density, mass and create a higher "felt" gravity (your explanation of why there is more gravity on earth - see link above)

but that would mean *per YOUR definition of Earth* that the iron ball should expand faster than the styrofoam ball

hence the extrapolation to a measurable effect

you still haven't addressed this simple fact

ignoring it doesn't make it go away
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 16, 2016
@pseudoscience idiot regTROLL cont'd
so don't bother responding.
- none of your other "explanations" actually make any sense at all either
(see link above re: comments on PO article)

more to the point: i am not responding so you can feel a warm fuzzy and get recognition... i don't care one whit about your feelings

what you have yet to be able to make an argument for (other than "Read [my] f******g book") is why your expansion can't actually explain simple observed phenomenon

i don't care if you ignore me

i will continue to point out your logic failures for the nooB's or those not familiar with con-men like you simply trying to get someone to believe their proselytizing in their latest "book" that has no actual scientific merit at all whatsoever

calling it a science book is not the same thing as actually doing science
you have ZERO peer reviewed papers
no science
no content
that's why your response is simply to state "You are irredeemably stupid"
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Nov 21, 2016
Hi Reg. :)

My apologies for tardy reply; been/will be very busy. Can't stay long now, so briefly...
...Prof Steinhardt just showed it [standard cosmology's Inflation etc logics/claims/interpretations] was nonsense hypothesis.
In my TOE all elementary particles are expanding, i.e. falling apart, even photons. Prof Steinhardt didn't "prove" anything, just stated his opinions.
Did you actually view his whole hour+ video, Reg? An "opinion" wouldn't take that long. He actually explained all the logical/physical/consequential reasons WHY and HOW "Inflation" was pseudoscience allowed into/remaining in the cosmology for too long. As for your own "expansion" scenarios: what is the causal mechanism?; and the consequences to EM forces/structures would be obvious when distance/scaling parameters get much larger. There are other aspects I haven't time to pursue with you now/here, so I'll leave off and go close some other discussion loose-ends before 'disappearing' again. :)
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 22, 2016
@RC
All matter is composed of smaller particles, themselves consisting of still smaller particles, and so on ad infinitum until only an electric charge is reached. So matter can be considered as particles in orbit around each other. Orbits in nature either decay (matter is destroyed) or increase in radius (expansion).
EM forces/structures under distance/scaling parameters do not change, as everything expands, including the observer.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 22, 2016
@RC
All matter is composed of smaller particles, themselves consisting of still smaller particles, and so on ad infinitum until only an electric charge is reached. So matter can be considered as particles in orbit around each other. Orbits in nature either decay (matter is destroyed) or increase in radius (expansion).
EM forces/structures under distance/scaling parameters do not change, as everything expands, including the observer.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Nov 22, 2016
Hi Reg. :)

Can't stay long; just in to tie up some loose ends before 'disappearing' for a while. I have time to offer a couple examples of problems for EM structure/forces 'features':

1) 'stiffness/coherence' etc parameters would be so drastically affected that the phenomena would not be consistent over time/distance/surface area and volumetric factors that grew beyond a certain relative value that 'solitonic' structural stiffness/resistance to disruption would differ, especially in collisions;

2) 'feedback loops' could not occur if distance too large for 'signal' to make full-cycle trip between parts of 'erstwhile coherent' structure/process (because speed of light would have to be surpassed to keep a whole/large structure/process 'feature' coherent via 'feedback loop' effects of EM and gravitational forces 'binding' the whole). This would have happened already if expansion scenario/rate was as rapid as 'falling' of released 'apple' indicates.

Gotta go. Bye for now. :)
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 22, 2016
@RC
1) No, they wouldn't be affected at all.
2) Speed of light increases with expansion (photons expand), so no change there. There are no "gravitational" forces.
I get the feeling you are not fully appreciating expansion theory. EVERYTHING expands, so that all measurements appear the same, e.g. the speed of light APPARENTLY remains constant.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2016
Hi Reg. :)

Again, just a few minutes, then have to go; so briefly:
1) No, they wouldn't be affected at all.
2) Speed of light increases with expansion (photons expand), so no change there. There are no "gravitational" forces.
I get the feeling you are not fully appreciating expansion theory. EVERYTHING expands, so that all measurements appear the same, e.g. the speed of light APPARENTLY remains constant.
There is a great and physically effective difference between 'geometry' (relative scale constancy) and 'dynamical' physical effects which become apparent only when distance/path-length parameters become so great that the usual physical processes cannot proceed as before any great change due to expansion. And the length of a photon cannot go beyond a certain limit without losing its 'localized' energy/impulse effects in QUANTUM scales which remain at the same 'size' due to 'optimal solitonic cohesion' parameters to resist self/collisional 'deconstruction'. :)
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 23, 2016
@RC
Dynamical physical effects never become apparent. Remember, EVERYTHING expands.
Physical processes are unchanged.
Photons expand along with everything else. The length never goes beyond a certain limit, because the certain limit also expands.
In the end, you will just have to read "The Situation of Gravity" to see why this is so, it is free on Kindle.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2016
Hi Reg. :)

Again, only time for one post today in this thread.

The 'matter/energy' features expansion affects 'stiffness/coherency forces/bond-distances' (as I already mentioned). Those are INHERENT structural parameters which determine stability of any 'feature' at whatever scale.

The 'geometry' is NOT the effective determinant of such stability, but only of 'packing' and 'contact surface' parameters between features/constituents.

Again, inherent stiffness/coherency/stability is a function of dynamical processing at whatever scale. But once scale of a PARTICULAR feature at a particular scale (say quantum) changed to 'macro' scales, the previous inherent parameters (and hence previous) stability etc is compromised, making the 'feature' easily disrupted by internal(harmonic) and external(collisional) dynamical forces. :)

Will look in again in couple days if I can. Cheers. :)

PS: Pls also see my post in other thread: http://phys.org/n...tor.html
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 24, 2016
Hi RC,
Please understand that "scale" does not change with expansion, it "apparently" stays the same. You insist on thinking of expansion in terms of things expanding in relation to you. EVERYTHING expands, INCLUDING YOU. Changes of "scale" are therefore not discernible.
Step back from this and think about it.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2016
@regTROLL

the nail in the coffin for your expansion is that two objects of the same size with wildly different masses are still the same measured size with the passing of time (as demonstrated here: http://phys.org/n...tor.html )

this isn't possible if your expansion is mass dependent

in order for someone to "feel gravity" they absolutely must be accelerating faster on a higher mass object (you validate this here: http://phys.org/n...ong.html )

so this means we can measure if there is expansion by measuring two objects of the same size with wildly different masses over a period of time

by your own definition the higher mass object absolutely must alter it's size by expanding faster over time

if not, then your argument is false

it's either that or your expansion must also require some attractive force like gravity to work, and if it does, your argument is useless

your book is an epic failure of pseudoscience

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.