These are some of the discussions I responded to in the comment section of Dr. Stacy McGaugh’s article Divergence on his Triton Station Blog. I suggest reading Stacy’s article first.
On Apr 12, 2021, at 1:39 PM, J Mark Morris wrote:
In my view the scientific method has failed in this current era because important prior interpretations were cemented into the prevailing scientific view, but were, we will come to find, wrong. I think that is what has happened in particle physics and cosmology. I won’t belabor my idea here, but ask yourself why immutable point charges around the Planck length in radius have not been studied with due diligence by the field.
So, in my view, we are in this strange time where some leading physicists recognize that there is a crisis yet it is also considered taboo to revisit these major priors or to argue against the prevailing view on some subjects, like dark matter. The reason I like reading your blog and papers (to the extent I understand) is because I think you are absolutely intellectually honest. So it really bothers me to hear that you are subjected to these presumptions and any degree of intellectual-cancellation or dismissal. As an ideating enthusiast I’ve experienced another side of this on full blast bullying, but never from you, which i appreciate. The people I worry most about though are the new entrants to the field who must deal with all the prior generations and power networks, and especially those that already have good reason to be wary of other people with power.
Regarding the subject of MOND and dark matter, I’m leaning towards BOTH. If the dark matter are the particles that create Einstein’s spacetime which is an aether as I see it, we would expect such an aether to get more dense as a function of local standard matter mass. Super dense by SMBHs and fairly dense around any object that is refracting light. So each galaxy would have this large cloud of dark matter and it would thin out considerably in intergalactic space. So the MONDian behaviour would result from this changing density of the aether. There is more to say, but I’ll stop here.
Commenter 1:
April 12, 2021 at 4:46 pm
Anyone who has studied immutable point charges around the Planck length in radius should give us some testable predictions from their theory which differ from those of other theories, or forever hold their peace.
J Mark Morris
April 12, 2021 at 7:03 pm
Oh gosh, there are so many. But Stacy prefers I keep it short. I’ll mention only a few and you can always visit my blog, which I think you can get to by clicking on my name. The quantum is not fundamental – it’s real and fixed, but it is an artifact of the most primitive emergent structure, the dipole of point charges. Some of them are sort of scary, like the idea that gen2 and gen3 fermion energy is actually present in a gen1 fermion, but those interior dipoles are shielded by the outer dipole. I imagine it must all sound outlandish to a scientist, but this is uncharted territory after all.
Commenter 1 : How about just one quantitative, testable prediction which differs from those of other theories? Just one?
Commenter 2 : Expanding on [the previous] comment, even one theoretical prediction that agrees with experimental measurements where existing theories do not, say g-2 for the muon, would be a start. Particle physics doesn’t get much simpler than the rate of precession of a particle’s spin axis in a magnetic field.
J Mark Morris writes
I am heading towards closed form mathematics, geometry, and logic for the standard model particles as the next stepping stone. That said, I posted an article in Dec 2020 called the Tau Transformation with a conceptual mechanism and prediction that a muon, which is missing the outer dipole in the energy core, is also missing a dimension of stabilization. I am trying to help particle physicists because they stopped one layer before the firm foundation and diverted into incorrect interpretations. As always, the physicists math formulas and observations are fine, but nature is the supreme trickster, and nature really did a number on particle physicists.
I want to bring this back to Stacy’s article though because it slays me to see great scientists investing so much time and effort on problems that would be so much easier if the prior interpretations were correct. Scientists need to augment the scientific method such that when the going gets this difficult and confusing with so many major open problems that scientists ought to seriously invest in revisiting the priors. If you read the post I mentioned above, it is easy to see why Michelson-Morley made the wrong interpretation. If my conjecture is correct, nature implements most (all?) standard model particles by amply reusing a building block of a physical spinning dipole that transacts energy in h-bar units of angular momentum. These dipoles implement variable time and length as well.
In reference to the quote in Stacy’s article, the longer quote is “When a man lies, he murders some part of the world. These are the pale deaths which men miscall their lives.” (Poet Paul Gerhardt) The second sentence really gets to the emotion behind each decision to commit an anti-scientific act to advance ones own interests. Each such decision chips away at the self as well as science. However, this is the reality in such a competive field as yours these days. There is more temptation than ever to commit these figurative murders. I also advocate adding to the list from Tracy : the lie of acquiescence to power lest challenge be career limiting. Ahhh, I don’t know why I even get into these discussions. All of this would be moot in the land of endless opportunity of hard little balls with an Lp circumference and a point charge center at +e/6 and -e/6.
Q : Does dark energy exert a gravitational pull on matter?
I think ‘gravitational pull’ is an unfortunate term. In my ‘spacetime is an aether’ view, mass continuously causes an AC energy gradient in the aether that decreases by r^2, yet the aether particles are accumulators of h-bar like anything dipole based. So, if I were to rephrase the question in my language: ‘does dark energy contribute to the energy levels and energy gradients in the aether’? I think the answer is yes, because dark energy is essentially the net energy flow away from each galaxy in my galaxy local cosmology.
J Mark Morris : San Diego : California
Neoclassical Physics and Quantum Gravity 