wrote in message
oups.com...
Dark matter is probably just particle-like structures which are so
small that they are maybe %95 nonexistent or something like that.

Most likely something along the lines you decided to prove my point and post
your incoherent drivel under another name. Grow up moron. Pity we can not
take legal action like the Randini foundation - we would all have a nicer
iriterntet. Ah well we can now have the fun of ignoring you and watch you
post away and not get any bites. And we can build up a list of names that
you post under - so far we have Corey White, RadicalLibertiran and Virtual
Adepts. It will be amusing to watch the list grow.

Bill


But anyway - lets forget about the particle thing and the nonexistence
for a second. Look - you have gravity and there is no detectable reason
why it would be there. You could consider this to be information which
has no source. An effect for which there is no detectable cause.

If that were true, then the universe is not deterministic.

wrote:
If you don't know what dark matter is already your in for a surprise,
and if you think you know what it is get ready to change your mind.

Dark matter is the quantum physics of cosmology and it only occurs
within the relativity of space.

This statement makes no sense.

Space is relative as well as time and
this means that the greater the distance you are from what you are
observing, the greater the margin of error that exists in the
observation.

No, that is not what the meaning of space and time being relative is at
all.

I am still trying to find a way to prove this theory to the world, but
it is a challenge to change scientific thought and I need more evidence
than I currently have. If I am right in this hypothesis what it means
to astrophysics is that dark matter is actually regular matter that
exists in a superposition of different possibilities at the same time.
All matter behaves this way when it is observed from a great distance,
and its fluctuating wave state impacts matter that is nearer to us.
This causes the matter that we do observe to behave in unpredictable
ways as if it is being influenced by something we can't measure with
our instruments.

You haven't made a hypothesis yet. You are just making random
conjectures. A hypothesis must be testable and it must be falsifable
(sp?). Your musing are neither.

To try and prove my hypothesis I set up an experiment with my computer.
I wrote a program to check the system time and to transfer the
information to another part of memory on the computer. I simulated a
great distance by transferring the data around the computers memory to
different variables 100 million times. Then I tride to calculate what
time it was on the computer.

Because the computers ability to calculate is not a constant (like the
speed of light), it was an impossible task to predict what time it
actually was before checking the time. This means that when observing
information from a great distance, like the time on another computer,
it was impossible to know exactly what the information really was. So
I could only observe a probability.

What probability were you measuring? This doesn't make sense. It is
possible to know the time exactly, all you need is the initial time,
and the rate at which the computer carries out operations.

What is interesting about this is that no matter who was observing the
experiment, there could never be an objective observer to determine the
actual time. Even the observer who was actually keeping track of the
time couldn't know what time it was when the information actually
arrived at its location.

It is possible to know the time exactly, all you need is the initial
time, and the rate at which the computer carries out operations, and
the number of operations. For instance, if you're running on a 1 GHz
computer, you compute 1 billion operations per second. Thus, if you
transfer the variable one hundred million times, the system clock will
have advanced 0.1s

What this means is that with greater
distance, things actually become possibilities, and that relative to
space things don't exist as particles but exist as waves.

This doesn't follow from your experiment at all.

This even happens on the macro level, so 100 million light years away
from us, the dark matter is actually regular ordinary matter that is
existing as a wave of possibilities.

100 million light years isn't that far. We can see ordinary matter that
far away.

Another result of this theory is
that it can explain gravity. If objects in space exist in a wave state
of possibility then they are moving away from themselves in every
direction at the same time, and so objects a great distance from each
other will gradually move closer together, because when observing each
other from a distance they are already closer to each other in the
realm of possibility.

This doesn't make sense at all.

Some of quantum physics also makes since with
this theory. If things even a small distance from you are existing in
a superposition of probabilities, then at the smallest level you could
notice this occurance. So quantum physics is really do to the
relativity of space!

No, quantum physics is inconsistent with your theory. It says at large
distances, quantum effects should converge on classical effects.

But if it were all true how could I really prove this theory to the
scientific community? Seriously, can't you give me some ideas how I
could prove all of this.

First, you need to develop a hypothesis. Preferably something
mathematical, and simple. Don't try to prove your whole theory in one
go, just some small aspect of it. Present an experiment that is
relavent (in your case, that will almost certainly mean telescope
time--or *maybe* a very clever numerical simulation (not a computer
experiment, like you tried to show; a computer program that models data
from a real experiment--you might want to do some research on Monte
Carlo analysis). Deriving a relationship or proportionality would be
good too.

A.

One other thing I forgot. If you haven't done so already, get yourself
a Ph.D in physics from a respectible university, and get yourself
subscriptions to the peer-reviewed journals in physic and astrophysics
so you can be up on all the latest experiments. I guess that's two
things. Oh well.

A.

Hobba, you are off your rocker. I'm not the original poster. That guy
babbles nonsense.

=whereas=

.......you have already conceded to me that you agree that I speak the
truth.

I think that you need to get calibrated or something.