swansont

! Moderator Note No. I don’t think the evidence supports this allegation, but the more important issue is that this is off-topic and irrelevant. If one thinks a proposition is poorly framed, one may ask for clarification. This is not uncommon.

There isn’t all that much energy in sound waves. How much of a temperature variation are you claiming?

Cell phones existed by 1990. GPS was fully operational in 1993 (though selective availability wasn’t turned off until 2000)

Please stop moving the goalposts. You cited the speed of the moon in comparison to airplanes. Nothing about gravity wells in that claim. Speed and gravitation are separate effects. And you still haven’t explained why being in the moon’s vicinity would make a difference. As I noted before, we have done GR tests using variations in the sun’s gravity well in addition to the earth’s.

But you can blithely rule out higher energy DM? No, that’s not how this works. Formulate a model where you form an atmosphere with DM, rather than declaring by fiat

It’s not a new kind of test, and you haven’t given any reason why some novel result would be expected. GPS satellites travel even faster than that, so you aren’t covering any new ground in that regard. And the comment was specifically about the rotation of the moon (the angular momentum), which is quite slow.

If DM particles are much lighter than neutrinos then it would be fairly easy for them to be relativistic. ”relic” neutrinos from about a second after the big bang have very low energy - less than a milli-eV https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_neutrino_background

Rumor has it that they’re going to nominate Mike Lindell to be Myspeaker.

Why would it flatten? Rotation requires angular momentum. What is the origin of that?

Our ability to sample data outside of our senses in a significant way, is less than 150 years old. (A little more for visual perception). We really haven’t been at this very long.

Add to this that primates can only directly sense the tiniest sliver of the spectrum corresponding to each of our senses

! Moderator Note It’s your thread. What do you mean by the matrix?

The amount of DM that would be near a planet is well outside the precision of planetary mass measurements. (see the comments by Janus on this matter) If there were a really large amount of DM in the atmosphere (but not elsewhere nearby) we would probably notice a discrepancy in the gravitational acceleration we have at the surface vs in orbit. … Another way to look at things is that we do know of particles that interact via the weak force and gravity, but not via EM or strong. Neutrinos. We do not have an “atmosphere” of neutrinos.

“how big” is an invitation to quantify the prediction. I see that there is a proposal to send clocks to an orbit near the sun in a search for dark matter. If that gets approved, it will be because there is a model that predicts an effect (I know Andrei Derevianko proposed one years ago; I discussed it with him at a conference) and they will have quantified the prediction, so they would know if the effect can be measured with the clocks they sent. You, OTOH, offer nothing beyond “send clocks to the moon” and there’s no reason to entertain such a vague proposal.

Because there is no way to dissipate the energy, except via gravitational radiation. Which would be elastic collisions. Similar in some ways, perhaps, but not atmospheres. We can only go by the physics we know. We know the mass distribution that must exist for the rotation curves we observe.

Not quite the way we do - it’s not in a disk.

AFAIK the Higgs field is everywhere, so all particles move in the field.

! Moderator Note You need to clarify which form of democracy, and what you mean by equality, in order for people to weigh in without having the discussion devolve and fragment

! Moderator Note You need to explain your theory, including what a “fourth dimensional energy” is

I suspect we wouldn’t call them atoms. Surely someone has solved the Schrödinger equation for a gravitational potential to see what the bound states would look like.

Yes, your position is untenable ! Moderator Note I’m not sure what this means. But this, like your earlier conjecture, lacks sufficient rigor to make predictions. We shouldn’t have to ask you for your model; if you have one you should have presented it. As it is it looks like you are just spouting buzzwords without regard for any of the associated physics principles. And that doesn’t comply with our requirements for speculations

You can have two slits but also get “which path” information, and the interference pattern disappears (easier to do with electrons, though)

There are occasions where do have clear evidence that they pass through one slit, but there is no interference pattern in those cases.

How that’s treated depends on the specific formulation of the question. As I stated earlier, one way this happens is something blocking the view. You can also have a situation where you are getting too few photons per unit time, so the image doesn’t register; this is why one would use a telescope and leave the camera shutter open for a length of time, so that you can gather more photons. It’s unlikely that the photons would intermittently leave a blind spot if the source is normally visible. Statistical fluctuations in photon count can be measured, but that’s only significant when the photon count is small. (such fluctuations are called shot noise; It’s like tossing a coin - for a large number of tosses, the results will be close to 50-50, and the fractional deviations will be small.)

But if the light hits your eye, there’s a path from the source to you. No more wave. No, it’s competing with very few things. That’s why it gets to you. If e.g. the moon is in the way, the light hits the moon, but you don’t see the distant star while that’s happening. One issue here is that if a photon gets to your eye, the probability of it doing that is 1. You can’t argue that it might not happen, since it already did.