LaurieAG

Hi _heretic, It's probably more of a mental bridge so I will describe a loose example of a similar quantum bridge that I saw in an episode of an anime called 'the enigmatic giant'. The giant says 'Make a statement to cross the bridge, if you tell the truth I will strangle you but if you tell a lie I will stab you with my sword'. The statement that allows you to cross the bridge is 'you will stab me with your sword'. If the giant does stab you with his sword then what you said would be true and he would have broken his own rules as he should have strangled you instead.

Hi guys, what an interesting thread. The Wick rotation is the only bridge I know between Presentism and Eternalism, the gateway between the imaginary and the real worlds. http://en.wikipedia....i/Wick_rotation You'd have to be careful about mixups with relative mass and rest mass though as the difference between the reduced Compton wavelength used in QM (and the Wick rotation) and the normal Compton wavelength (used in association with luminosity (Boltzmann's constant uses the Planck constant which uses the reduced Compton wavelength form) in astronomical mass calculations) is a factor of 2 * Pi. If the calculated mass of rotating sources is based on the wrong form then dividing this sum by 2 * Pi would mean that there is very little dark matter around. I bet Zeno stood at the start/finish line to see who the winner was just like all the other ancient greeks.

In some cases programming languages are written in themselves.

Over 30 years ago I worked as a technical officer in a Geotechnical and Materials Testing Laboratory that was in the process of developing Australia's triaxial core testing standards. The setup used 4 mercury pots on pulleys to regulate the pressure of water surrounding the core sample being compressed. The testing was used to determine the best size for in situ pillars in underground mining. Just before the core sample was about to fail (and the mercury pots popped) the old Malaysian engineer who was in charge of the testing would say to me 'Laurie, you go outside now, I will clean up, I have had children and you have not'.

Hi imatfaal, They may have accidently used an equation where the reduced Compton wavelenghth was obscured in the formulation. I am looking for circumstances where the reduced Compton wavelength is used instead of just the Compton wavelength. In the second paper on the OP, the rebuttal paper for the first non dark matter paper, they change the rotation speed of non central band rotating objects from the central bands average to make dark matter appear. Here is a simple time/distance scale analysis of light from rotating objects. Pi, as well as being a dimensionless constant, has a common definition in all the different methodologies in cosmology regardless of how it is used so it is a good starting point for a simple observational/thought experiment. This experiment is purely about what should be expected to be observed when we view rotating sources on different time/distance scales when they all share the same elementary geometric ratios within their basic observation structures. All of the constants in the 3 ratios below can be regarded as time or distance (based on the distance travelled by light in the time). If I started photographing a light (say a sparkler) in a dark room around 6 and a bit feet away, and the light was being spun in a circle 2 feet in diameter and I captured the light from the spinning light source during one complete circle the ratio ( A ) of the distance between the rotating source and the observer over the diameter of rotation would be roughly equal to Pi. In this case the ratio ( B ) of the distance between source and observer over the distance travelled by light in a year would be very small and the ratio ( C ) of the observation period over the time it takes for the light source to be rotated once will equal one. All observations should have a width of field that covers the complete diameter of rotation of the source being observed. If I halve the exposure period I get half a circle and capture half as much light and when I double the exposure period I get 2 circles over each other and twice as much light in my image. If the light is rotated twice as fast I would expect something that looked similar to when I doubled the exposure period but I would also expect to capture the same amount of light as in my original one rotation in the same time despite the doubling of the speed of rotation. If I put two lights together I could halve the exposure time and double the speed of rotation to capture a similar amount of light from the original 1 light doing 1 complete rotation. If the light moved at an angle to me I would observe an oval instead of a circle but the amount of light captured would remain the same as in a complete circle. In this simplest base context A = Pi, B = tiny, C = 1 and the observer will capture one complete cycle. On any scale where ratio C >= 1 the observer will capture at least one complete cycle despite the size of ratio B. On any scale where A = Pi * x, B >= 1 and C < 1 the observer will capture the light from B * C = x of one rotation during any observation regardless of the speed of rotation of the same object. On a galactic year scale where A = Pi * x, B = 230 million and C = 1/230 million you would capture the light from B * C = x rotations or roughly one rotation regardless of the speed of rotation. Either way, you get a similar discrepancy in mass.

I was going through the latest dark matter papers (and others) below and I wondered, if you had accidentally used the reduced Compton wavelength instead of the Compton wavelength, could you just divide your mass by 2 * Pi to get the correct answer? http://en.wikipedia....pton_wavelength http://www.ras.org.u...for-dark-matter The main workings of this paper are described in the second paper. http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4033 This paper does not mention Compton wavelength although the final equation (28) contains 2 * Pi. http://phys.org/news...sun.html#ajTabs 3 equations, 11, 12 and 13 contain 4*Pi. Just to clarify the question, if I unknowingly use a reduced Compton wavelength as part of the structure of a complex formulation, can I just divide the total mass, as calculated from astronomical observations, by 2 * Pi at the end before I check for observed/calculated mass discrepancies? The other papers that I could find that specifically referred to the reduced Compton wavelength were mixed. http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3435 "Dark matter, dark energy and gravitational proprieties of antimatter" Cites reduced Compton wavelength. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.1812.pdf "A BOHR'S SEMICLASSICAL MODEL OF THE BLACK HOLE THERMODYNAMICS" Cites reduced Compton wavelength in the mouths of black holes. When I find other relevant papers I will post the links on this thread. It will be interesting to see if any consistent patterns start to develop one way or the other. Please feel free to post any links to Dark Matter papers that (1) refer to reduced or Compton wavelengths or (2) don't refer to Compton Wavelengths at all along with (2) any other relevant papers that contain reduced Compton wavelengths along with mass and photons.

Time travel will only exist in those universes where you can put a dead cat in Schrodingers box, run the experiment backwards, and get a live one out.