Wasn't it Erik Max Francis who wrote:
>Larry Caldwell wrote:
>
>> I have been reading the popular scientific articles about Dark
>>Matter, and am having trouble digesting the concept. My big problem
>>is figuring out how it cooled off enough after the Big Bang to settle
>>down and form galactic halos. When normal matter was formed in the
>>Big Bang, it was very hot. It cooled by emitting huge amounts of EM
>>radiation. Dark Matter doesn't emit EM radiation. Where did the
>>energy go? The weak force is far too short range to provide a pathway.
>
>It went away through cosmological red****ft, the same way all the other
>energy of the Big Bang went away. As the Universe expands, everything
>in it cools, including things that don't interact with anything else.
>Energy is not globally conserved in general relativity.
Drat. I was hoping that there wouldn't be a simple explanation in the
conventional theory, because there's a really simple explanation in my
crackpot theory of dark matter.
My crackpot theory is that dark matter is just normal matter that's
outside the brane in which our universe resides. Brane theory suggests
that gravity is weak because gravitons can travel in all directions,
whereas other force carriers can't travel outside the brane. Objects in
our universe feel the gravity from massive objects in nearby branes, but
don't feel any other forces from them since the other force carriers are
trapped in their branes. The dark matter appears fuzzy because the
separation between the branes is the equivalent of several thousand
light years.
In the crackpot theory, the matter in the other branes cools down in
exactly the same way that normal matter cools down in our universe.
--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure
|
