XPost: sci.physics.relativity   
   From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 6/03/2026 3:42 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   > On 03/05/2026 06:43 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:   
   >> On 5/03/2026 9:57 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:   
   >>> Am Dienstag000003, 03.03.2026 um 13:14 schrieb Bill Sloman:   
   >>   
   >>    
   >>   
   >>>>> But we have hints already, that time behaves in strange ways, if the   
   >>>>> universe is observed from very remote locations (like e.g. by the   
   >>>>> Pioneer probe).   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> (This btw was my personal explanation for the so called 'Pioneer   
   >>>>> anomaly'   
   >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That wasn't "time" behaving in a strange way, it was a very small   
   >>>> unexpected deceleration of the space craft, which turns out to   
   >>>> explicable in terms of the asymmetric thermal radiation from the   
   >>>> radioisotope thermoelectric generator.   
   >>>   
   >>> Sure, but 'unexpected acceleration' looks pretty much like 'time   
   >>> behaving in a strange way'.   
   >>   
   >> Until you work out what was actually going on.   
   >>   
   >> Invoking imaginary explanations for something that looks perfectly   
   >> explicable when looked at carefully isn't a route to getting taken   
   >> seriously.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Yeah, like "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy",   
   > or gyroscopic or viscoelastic effects in third order,   
   > or "Inflationary Cosmology" and "Expanding Universe".   
   >   
   >   
   > Dark Matter can be explained as luminous matter when   
   > there's an account of free rotating frames and real   
   > space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational,   
   > while Dark Energy can be explained as redshift bias and   
   > about light's entry into rotating frames as about and around.   
      
   There was a german astrophysicist in Brazil who claimed that if you did   
   your Lorenz contraction calculations carefully enough you could explain   
   galactic rotation curves without invoking dark matter - he published the   
   results of detailed calculations for three different galaxies.   
      
   Nobody seems to have taken him seriously. The standard "average out   
   everything" approach is much faster and doesn't give the same answer.   
      
   > Thusly the universe isn't 99% missing matter and energy.   
      
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter   
      
   "In the standard Lambda-CDM model of cosmology, the mass–energy content   
   of the universe is 5% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter, and 68.2% a   
   form of energy known as dark energy. Thus, dark matter constitutes 85%   
   of the total mass, while dark energy and dark matter constitute 95% of   
   the total mass–energy content."   
      
   Dark matter isn't an attractive explanation, but it has proved useful in   
   a number of different situations. We do need something to explain   
   galactic rotation curves, and dark matter is the best explanation we've   
   come up with so far. The total absence of any particle which could   
   quality as a dark matter candidate - and people have been looking hard   
   for years - is a bit worrying. The positron got found a couple of years   
   after Dirac claimed that it had to exist. Dark matter particles have   
   proved to be a lot more evasive.   
      
   --   
      
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)