PS: Because of this implication, that MBH are stable, I have joined the campaign to stop LHC. If that machine succeeds in the stated goal of synthesizing MBH, we are all in trouble. Therefore it was written in a style more oriented to the lay-audience… but it is still backed up with a tightly referenced bibliography.

Things are really starting to come into focus for these guys in theoretical physics. I feel confident Sean has anticipated a developement like this. The folks at UNC Physics and UCLA Physics with Ned Wright have also been working along these lines. By the end of the decade, with the new Hadron equipment, the twin universe will be as “old hat” as black holes in Physics. Everyone will be busy looking at phase transition, chirality and other features of the “other side”.

The 10-11D “triad” will be next, but it is only implied mathematically…I don’t know if the Hadron equipment or other experiments with existing equipment will nail it down experimentally.

Simple stuff like our knowlege of the existence of the big bang, yet denial of the existence of white holes by so many has been a real stumbling block. I think many folks in the field know their math, but are deficient in their knowledge of engineering, geometry and the history of science…especially 20th century physics.

Have no fear. you will be hearing PLENTY more about this!

I hope this finds you well. Best Wishes, Sam

http://www.physorg.com/news126955971.html

It is relevant to discussions between Sam, myself, Lawrence, John, and a few others earlier in the thread, considering a hypersphere universe and the merging of GR/SR/QM.

Wayne

What if and just what if, the dark matters are part of the jets as the theory of dipole gravity(by Jeong) suggests.

I’m wondering what will be the problem with this picture. Ordinary matter in the mode of a constant travel around the surrounding space of the spiral galaxy. I think it is a very attractive and economic concept.

The last synthesis in physics occurred well over one hundred years ago with James Clark Maxwell. Particle physicist might like to say the Unification of weak nuclear and electromagnetism counts. It only counts if you disregard all physics before the 1900’s. That’s not a synthesis and Einstein knew it. Quantum physics is the problem and the next synthesis is the solution.

I was thinking about what dark matter would look like if it were visible and at first I thought it could be like a planet or star, but then from the idea of repulsion I concluded that it was not a possibility unless there was more Baryonic matter than than dark matter, and then we wouldn’t have planets. (according to the properties repulsion theory.) To draw to a point, I researched further into dark matter and found that some scientists have constructed an image of what dark matter would look like based on data, and it was exactly what I had pictured. Furthermore, I also went on instinct to believe that scientists were wrong about dark energy and dark matter being two separate things, the 96% (or more) of the unseen had to be to mass support my theory of repulsion. As it turned out researchers just announced that they were mistaken about the whole “Dark Energy” thing. I’m not saying that I am right

I predicted two properties all from a little imagination based off of the simple physics we experience and observe in everyday life. The answers to our questions are probably staring us in the face. I highly doubt there will be any interaction between the Baryonic and dark matter, other than a gravitational one, just because of its nature to repel matter and seek a state of equilibrium, theoretically.

I don’t really know, I may sound foolish, is there any truth in what I am suggesting? In terms of a concentration gradient at least? Of course it gets a lot more complicated from there… but I have just started with this idea and it has blossomed since yesterday.