[ExI] Dark mass = FTL baryons?

Stuart LaForge avant at sollegro.com
Thu Aug 24 04:00:27 UTC 2017

John Clark wrote:

​> ​
>formula is only an approximation that works pretty well when matter is
>chilly, less than a few hundred thousand degrees or so, but it breaks down
>entirely and produces ridiculous numbers when things get much hotter than
>that for the same reason Newton's theory works pretty well at highway
>speeds but not at starship speeds.
I too share this concern, which is why I take my calculations using the
Botlzmann distribution with a grain of salt. But that being said, we are
talking about conditions in the first microsecond of the big bang. I don't
think SR or GR is of much use here either. How can the speed of light in a
vacuum be meanigful if there is no vacuum yet, only a superheated
quark-gluon plasma that light cannot penetrate?

We can't seem to come up with a reliable figure for the critical
temperature for the Higgs field to manifest and give particles mass. If
protons condensed before the Higgs field came online, they would have had
a distribution of all kinds of speeds.

Once the Higgs manifested, clusters of particles that were superluminal
relative to other clusters of particles would have been causally sealed
away from each other in mutually superluminal reference frames that you
could call Lorenz domains or causal cells seperated from one another by
event horizons. From the rest frame of each causal cell, the matter
contained in the other causal cells would manifest as gravitation with no
discernible cause i.e. dark matter.

>If protons or anything else ​
>could move faster than light
>(​they're called
​>) ​
>then I could
​>use them to send ​
>send you ​
​>message that you'd receive before I sent it, and that would create logical
>paradoxes. Also the mathematics clearly show that the faster a Tachyon
>moves the less energy it has, one that was only slightly faster than light
>would have a lot of energy but one 10^25 faster would have  almost no
>energy. ​

I don't use the term tachyon for precisely this reason. Space noodles are
different from tachyons in a number of ways: They are protected from
interacting with observers by event horizons. Their proper times become
proper distances in our causal cell. And they probably have real masses
instead of imaginary ones although it is a linear mass instead of a point

>Nobody knows what Dark Matter is but we do know that if it is to explain
>observed galaxy formation and clustering (and that is after all the entire
>point of the Dark Matter theory) then it must be made of very slow moving

Well, I agree that nobody knows what dark matter is which is why I am
throwing my hat in the ring. As strange a hat at as it might be. Like I
have said numerous times, space-noodles would hardly seem to move at all
in the short time they manifest in our causal domain. You don't get much
slower than standing still.

>> Riddle me this: Gravity crushes everything more massive than the
>>asteroid​ ​
>> Ceres into spheres: Planets, stars, black holes, etc. Why does dark
>> form gigantic filaments with embedded galaxies instead of spheres?

​>Because gravity is not the only tool regular matter has to help it form
>larger structures, it also has chemistry and that is essential to get the
>ball rolling; but Dark Matter doesn't seem to have anything equivalent to
>chemistry.  When 2 microscopic particles of regular matter come close to
>each other the gravitational force between them is utterly insignificant,
>but microscopic particles can be and often are electrically charged, and
>even when the overall particle is neutral one side of it is slightly
>positive and the other slightly negative. The charge may be small but the
>Electromagnetic force is over a billion billion billion billion times
>stronger than gravity so it dominates on the small scale. Once the particle
>has grown to a million tons or so gravity can start to have a small but
>measurable effect, but as far as we know Dark Matter just has gravity and
>so has no way to take the first few steps.

This is actually a pretty good explanation although I still don't see why
matter without chemistry would form intersecting filaments instead of
clouds. Why isn't dark matter spread uniformly throughout the universe in
thermal equilibrium. Why is it clumping?

Given large numbers of long lines like space-noodles, intersections would
be quite common and almost trivially expected.

In any case, the lack of linear gravitational lensing is problematic for
my hypothesis. Unless of course unless space-noodles form closed loops for
some reason. But I haven't a clue how to model that mathematically nor how
likely such a scenario would be.

Stuart LaForge

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list