Re: Scientists just build a detector that could finally catch dark matter

But wrong. Neither the Heisenberg uncertainty principle nor the Pauli exclusion principle have anything to do with the hypothetical Le Sage particles, which happen to need self-contradictory properties if they were to exist.

There's no need for Le Sage particles for atoms and stuff to keep moving

- they've got to lose energy to slow down. That's what makes dark matter interesting - it doesn't seem to have any mechanism for losing energy (except perhaps by generating gravitational waves) so we can have great wads of it orbiting every galaxy and explaining the orbital velocities of the matter we can see.

The mad Brazilian explained it by figuring Lorenz corrections into the gravitational interactions of the matter we can see, but doing it right makes the arithmetic a lot more tedious. It becomes a non-linear interaction and a lot of convenient simplifications don't deliver the accuracy you need - if I understood his paper correctly, which is not guaranteed.

Simple, but unworkable.

To your own satisfaction.

All the ones that you might have thought about.

You do seem to be wrong.

String Theory seems to be able explain anything so it's useless rather than wrong. Working it on a quantum computer would mean that you could get through a lot of similar hypotheses quite rapidly, which opens to the door to exploring loads more variations, but there's no guarantee that any of them will be useful.

Don't downplay the impact of disproving experiments in science.

Groetjes Albert

Seeing nothing merely means they need a new, more expensive detector. Beyond that, it doesn't prove anything.

Jeroen Belleman

I don't know. the Michelson-Morely experiment

The history of gravity wave detectors illustrates your general point pretty well. The first ones data back to the 1960's, and first one to detect anything did so in 2016. That required the development of the advance LIGO - it's predecessor ran from 2002 to 2010 without detecting anything.

Of course without the Michelson-Morley experiment, nobody would have bothered to look for gravity waves in the first place.

What's any of that got to do with gravity waves? The proposition that about 30% of the mass of two colliding black holes gets radiated away in the energy tied up in the gravity waves they radiate as they collide and fuse puts them in a very different category from local tidal effects.

Astrology would probably tell you the same thing. Ill-comprehended duff theories are frequently used by ignorant people to make fatuous arguments - as you are doing here.

Nobody has ever said they were. They have an event horizon whose dimensions depend on the mass of the black hole. A stellar mass black hole is about 30km in diameter

If you were silly enough to take Le Sage seriously you might think that. Sadly, there's no evidence of the existence of a point where all Le Sage particles have been intercepted - if there were there might be some point in taking the Le Sage theory seriously.

Mathematicians don't divided by zero. It leads to mathematical paradoxes

- which you can find without too much effort. Differential calculus is based on extrapolating progressively smaller increments to get a stable limit. It doesn't work on discontinuous functions, which are consequently non-differentiable.

By which you mean?

All living human beings seem to generate brain waves. Nobody has a clue what they represent.

Aspect demonstrated that quantum entanglement is maintained over appreciable distances. Human brain waves don't seem to be any kind of quantum phenomenon. There's probably some kind of comic image in there somewhere, but you don't seem to know enough to turn it into anything more that an ignorant speculation

You have made yourself look silly. Sadly, you haven't made it to the level of being funny.

False presumption.

You aren't part of that particular "we".

Two hundred years ago they had telescopes and could see the surface of the moon, which is 240,000 miles away.

Since your understanding falls quite a way short of the modern scientific concensus, you don't seem to be open to the better models that are already available, while accepting the Le Sage model of gravity which is decidedly inferior to Einstein's warped space-time.

Tell us again how the Le Sage model explains the precession of the orbit of Mercury.

Really? I've not heard anybody sane make that claim.

An original argument - not that it amounts to any kind of argument. Lorentz contraction depends of the velocity of the moving object with respect to the speed of light.

Not that you have explained why this might be happening.

So you want to tell us. Has anybody remotely credible made such a prediction?

Hewlett-Packard flew two atomic clocks around the world in opposite directions in 1971.

Except that you haven't posted any kind of explanation. Hafele and Keating explained their results in terms of special and general relativity. Similar experiments have been carried out more recently with more stable atomic clocks, and relativity still seems to work.

Sadly, clocks run more slowly deep in gravitational field, not faster.

Gravitational red-shift is the observed effect.

So your "explanation" produces exactly the wrong answer.

Something close to that was done. If you read through the Hafele and Keating wikipedia link it covers a experiment where a tuboprop aircaft was flown in circles at 500km/hour 10km above Chesapeake Bay in Maryland.

It is. Nor is it what was said. What was actually said was that general relativity provided a model that predicted the effects observed. What the experiments did prove was that moving a clock to higher position in a gravitational field made it run faster, and that a moving clock ran slower than a stationary clock

One that produces the wrong answer, not that it actually qualifies as any kind of actual explanation.

I read it years ago, and read it the end, which you clearly didn't.

So that is what you intended to say, but didn't manage to express it clearly enough.

The Le Sage particles may get intercepted by the celestial object, but they come out the other side. Why should the pendulum be shorter or longer while a Le Sage particle is going through it?

And atomic clocks don't have pendulums. The frequency of Moessbauer Fe-57 nuclear clock depends on the state of the nucleus on the Fe-57 atom, which is even less pendulum-like.

And if Le Sage particles are discrete and finite the Fe-57 nucleus would have a different resonant frequency when a Le Sage particle was going through it and we should see two resonance frequencies, not one.

An inexhaustible supply of Le Sage particles is infinite, which is a singularity.

Try learning to write.

I'd like to see some sense in the nonsense you post, but you are fond of your nonsense.

Not something that anybody has ever been able to detect.

The people who do experiments which rely on liquid helium-3 to get their samples close to absolute zero should have been able to detect this.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Not what I was taught when I studied quantum mechanics as a graduate student as part of my chemistry course.

We already seem to have enough subatomic particles to explain what we can see. Postulating something even smaller without have a shred of evidence for it existence may make you happy, but you do seem to be a lunatic.

They don't.

Modified Newtonian mechanics doesn't seem to be able to able to explain all the facts that dark matter seems to explain. It seems to be as dead as Le Sage's theory of gravity.

And didn't like what he got.

But you are a lunatic.

I'm left-handed and wear my watch on my left hand. It made the first watches I wore easier to wind, back when we had to do that.

Lots of life chemistry depends on chiral molecules. One of my blood pressure pills was a racemic mix and the two chiral components had different effects - one made my pulse more regular and the other lowered my blood pressure.

Complex molecules frequently need to have the right chiral structure to interact with their optically active targets. This goes back long before Adam.

Nonsense isn't good for anybody.