Carlos Velazquez

The consensus among cosmologists is that about 85% of the mass in the universe is "dark matter." This professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Huntsville in Alabama is proposing that there is no dark matter and the universe has "topological defects" that could explain why there is more gravity than can be accounted for by observable mass.

One thing for sure this study will accomplish is continuing the government funding of such "studies" as these. I'm very skeptical of these theories which cannot be explained by the known physical laws or cannot be tested and require things they admit are impossible to detect. Let all these extravagant studies proceed but not with my tax dollars.

"A distinguished professor of physics and astronomy at UAH, Lieu says that his interpretation of the problem "gives a finite gravitation force in the absence of any detectable mass,” an approach that he says arose from his frustration with prevailing ideas about dark matter that still lack any direct evidence after more than a century since the idea was initially proposed. According to Lieu, concentric structures comprised of shell-like topological defects could account for the excess gravity current models require to bind galaxies or clusters. These structures likely have their genesis in a cosmological phase transition—an event where the state of matter changes across the entire universe—which occurred very early in the universe. Lieu says such a phase transition could potentially generate gravitational effects without mass."

Gravity Without Mass? New Study Challenges the Existence of Hypothetical Dark Matter - The Debrief
thedebrief.org

Tim adds:

I've always thought of dark matter as much like the Aether (a massless, invisible substance that conducts light); everyone believed in it without any evidence. Einstein just threw it away after the Michaelson-Morley experiment since there was no value in it. Once he dumped it he was able to work out Relativity.

Years ago I read that all that matter would likely phosphoresce from absorbed energy if it existed. Not sure if there is any truth to it but it seems to me we should see SOMETHING, especially now when we have space-based telescopes.

(The Michaelson-Morley experiment involved splitting a single beam of light, sending them in opposite directions, bouncing them back to their starting point, then measuring the difference. If there was an  aether the beam moving against the direction of the aether would arrive slightly after the beam moving with it. But it didn't happen; the beams arrived at the same time.)

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 420 words, total size 3 kb.