“The boom of thunder and crackle of lightning generally mean one thing: a storm is coming. Curiously, though, the biggest storms of all, hurricanes, are notoriously lacking in lightning. Hurricanes blow, they rain, they flood, but seldom do they crackle,” at least that was how NASA s Patrick Barry and Tony Phillips began an article entitled ‘Electric Hurricanes’ early in 2006. The article then makes reference to three of the most powerful hurricanes of 2005 –Rita, Katrina, and Emily– with comment that they did have lightning, in fact “lots of it”.
A mystery surrounding hurricanes is their actual formation, for while it is generally accepted that a warmer than usual ocean is a pre-requisite, the formation of tropical cyclones is the topic of extensive ongoing research and is still not fully understood.
One of the reasons why cyclone formation remains mysterious could be because we are excluding one of the largest forces in nature from our intellectual armoury – electricity. The general perception is that atmospheric turbulence creates the charge separation that produces lightning and so electrical forces are excluded from any models of weather.
Much the same reasoning is applied to space where charge separation is also not deemed possible. But this attitude should have changed 100 years ago when Kristian Birkeland pointed out that the polar auroras were produced by electrical currents from the Sun, and proceeded to demonstrate that with his famous “Terrella” experiments.
As Hannes Alfven observed in 1948 “Nearly everything we know about the celestial universe has come from applying principles we have learnt in terrestrial physics…Yet there is one great branch of physics that up to now has told us little or nothing about astronomy. That branch is electricity. It is rather astonishing that this phenomenon, which has been so exhaustively studied on earth, has been of so little help in the celestial sphere”.
Alven’s student Anthony Peratt continued research into plasma universe theory and developed Particle in Cell simulation using the Maxwell-Lorentz equations to model plasma behaviour. One type of simulation involved a pair of Birkeland currents in parallel and looking top row left to right, then next row left to right, was able to produce a spiral galaxy formation, (see Figure 1). The accuracy of PIC simulation is shown in its astonishing ability to mimic known galaxy shapes (Figure 2) without using gravity.
Put simply, the two parallel Birkeland currents approach and start twisting around each other, imparting a spinning motion. This is the basic design of the Maxwell homopolar motor. Here it is the electric current that is generating the circular motion and suggests that we should be looking for signs of electrical activity in cyclones.
Louis Hissink
Perth
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The second last paragraph should read “without using gravity”. Gravitational effects are negligible.
Louis – so the Earth goes around the Sun because of electric forces – right?
I don’t know, it’s all just models, and we can’t trust models.
Figure 2 – is from this paper.
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/CosmologyPeratt.pdf
It does not show the shape of the galaxy at all. What this is showing is simulations using a supercomputer what the galaxy should look like from a radio telescope.
The major problem with Louis is that he has latched onto this electric universe idea and seen it as an ideal anti idea that appeals to his particular obession to be different.
This is the source of the list that Louis published in his last post:
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html
Reading the first reference, which is a biography of Hannes Alfvén, I can see where plasma physics fits in and that if the bio is at least half true then Alfven was a brilliant physicist.
What I cannot see however is any reference to a replacement of classical gravitational physics with a plasma ideas. What Alfven did was to explain several phenomena like the solar wind and cosmic rays in terms of plasma physics that the establishment did not accept until it was actually shown that there exists strong electric and magnetic fields in the plasma that fills space. It was written by a devotee so perhaps some of it is worship however it is absolutely worth a read.
It would seem though that the wackier elements, like Louis and the Atlantis people, have extended this idea far past what is real to satisfy their desire to be different and be perceived as free thinkers.
Yes the universe is electric, yes there exists strong electric and magnetic fields in the galaxy that have not been propely examined and may play a part in galaxy formation along with a host of other things maybe even cyclones.
However I am sure that Hannes Alfvén would be spinning in his grave to think that his ideas would lead to the wakiness that is Louis.
And if you would like to get an inkling of what the shoulders of giants might look like glance over this paper from the same list:
Problems of Gravitational Stability in the Presence of a Magnetic Field, S. Chandrasekhar and E. Fermi, Astrophys. J., V.118, pp. 116-141, 1953. (1.8MB).
Yes that is Enrico Fermi – the Italian navigator that reached the new world and S. Chandrasekhar who was instrumental in our understanding of black holes – giants indeed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subrahmanyan_Chandrasekhar
Wes i presume you will appear in this thread so i’m wondering if you can respond to “When i regard the idea of nothingness as just that, an idea, can i enquire who or how or what gives you the evidence to the contrary?”
ALSO ….
BB High priests like Einstein, Hawking, Davies, Smoot, Mather, even surprisingly supporters like Dawkins are anthropocentric, closed systems people with a belief in the now obsolete, alpha/omega, finite universal causality and in this respect, quantum mechanics and classical mechanics are similar … and of course everyone is seduced by formulas until they penetrate the many inbuilt arbitrary assumptions. My contention is that the universe is holistic and connected ….. NOT isolated/mechanical. At least the plasma bods are working with this assumption which is a positive for infinite universal causality.
Perhaps Wes you may comment on your preference for the mechanical assumption. Anthropocentric bias perhaps or a powerful priest class of mathematicians wishing to remain the fashion leaders in physics?
“I don’t know, it’s all just models, and we can’t trust models.
Posted by: SJT at May 13, 2008 09:50 AM”
You must have missed this part:
“Alven’s student Anthony Peratt continued research into plasma universe theory and developed Particle in Cell simulation using the Maxwell-Lorentz equations to model plasma behaviour. One type of simulation involved a pair of Birkeland currents in parallel and looking top row left to right, then next row left to right, was able to produce a spiral galaxy formation, (see Figure 1). The accuracy of PIC simulation is shown in its astonishing ability to mimic known galaxy shapes (Figure 2) without using gravity.”
Plasma has long been proven real.Then he used long and proven real equations:
Maxwell-Lorentz equations
Dr. Peratt results were all connected to real data and produced results that match with real galaxies to the letter.
Now I present the FOUR states of matter:
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/4states2.html
Point on the pictures.
Note that only one produces ELECTROMAGNETIC radiation.
There is a lot to be learned.
sunsettommy – “Plasma has long been proven real.Then he used long and proven real equations:”
Nobody here is denying the existance of plasmas – you only have to look at a flame. What is doubted is the wilder claims that plasmas are the be all and end all of the universe and that establishment physics is just too stupid to realise it.
BTW climate scientists use real and proven equations in there models as well. The issue that you have normally with computer models is the paramaters used to setup the simulation. Similarly Dr Perratt could have used incorrect paramaters in setting up his simulations.
Either computer models are OK or they are not. You cannot say one set are correct and the others are all crap.
Help, my soy latte is electric!
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/173/481317701_48800e97e5.jpg?v=0
Ender,
I thought you were not going to be drawn into this discussion?
None of these ideas presented here are mine, they are part of the science of electric plasma and the literature is extensive and peer reviewed.
But clearly you refuse to even look at it so perhaps cull your comments and stop the messeneger shooting; it that does is imply that you have lost the argument.
Louis – “I thought you were not going to be drawn into this discussion?”
I am only in it to inject some sanity. There is nothing in any of the links from Los Alamos that confirms your crackpot ideas. These are papers that attempt to explain phenomenon that cannot be explained by gravity alone. There is nothing there that disputes gravity or anything else that you seem to doubt.
Ender,
You misrepresent the facts:
“Not only is the universe permeated by plasma and plasma currents but its dynamics are dominated by electromagnetic, not gravitational forces”, A.L. Peratt, “Not with a Bang”, The Sciences Jan/Feb 1990.
Plasma cosmology has not eliminated gravity at all, it’s just irrelevant when compared to electrical forces that are 10^39 more powerful.
And you don’t understand How Peratt developed his PIC simulation – it was based on laboratory plasma experiments and sound theory.
That his simulations are almost indistinguishable fron known galaxies, it means that the theory is right and galaxy dynamics can be worked out using Maxwell-Lorentz equations with the need to ‘INVENT” dark matter and energy, black holes, and all the other imaginals.
So which theory would you choose to use – one that explained observations without inventing ad hoc imaginerary parameters, or one which only works when mythical elements and things we can’t see are added to the model?
Error: without the need to invent etc.
Ender
Which crackpot idea are your referring to – list them or apologise.
Ender writes:
“Nobody here is denying the existance of plasmas – you only have to look at a flame. What is doubted is the wilder claims that plasmas are the be all and end all of the universe and that establishment physics is just too stupid to realise it.”
The conventional scientists are obviously intelligent.But their education does not have a good grounding in the fields of electrical engineering built into it.That is why they are continually mystified by various astronomical phenomena.That electrical engineers would understand.That is why so many of the Plasma proponents are also well schooled in electrical fields.
If you stop being so defensive and start reading up on the subjects surrounding the plasma cosmology.You will see it differently.
“BTW climate scientists use real and proven equations in there models as well. The issue that you have normally with computer models is the paramaters used to setup the simulation. Similarly Dr Perratt could have used incorrect paramaters in setting up his simulations.”
Why are B.Sing me? It has long been shown that climate modelers do not know how to factor in a number of climate effects.Such as CLOUDS!
Then too have you bothered to notice that the IPCC posted a range of temperature models for the year 2100 that is spread by a factor of at least 10? LOLOLOLOL…. 1.5C to 5.8C is a huge spread in just a 99 year time frame.
Dr. Peratt has never been shown to be incorrect in his simulations.Maybe YOU can be the first to show him wrong.Just speculating that he might be wrong will not be acceptable.
By the way I posted a link in the other thread.Showing that way back in 1956 a Doctorate in physics did a run of simulations using……….. electrical parameters.Created the very same types of galaxies that DR. Peratt did in 1990.Using different simulating approaches to get very similar results.
Ender, I certainly don’t see things as black and white as you. I applaud the IPCC for trying to get the models to work, I just wish they would acknowledge their very significant limitations. As regards, Louis’ electric universe, why not hear him out. He is not denying gravity but looking for other factors that may add to our understanding. I don’t see why you should find his sometimes outrageous ideas such a threat.
There is certainly a lot we don’t know including about clouds, let alone cyclones and galaxies.
Louis – “Plasma cosmology has not eliminated gravity at all, it’s just irrelevant when compared to electrical forces that are 10^39 more powerful.”
Not at the distances involved and on objects that are not charged. You are not seriously going to argue that the Earth is held in it’s orbit by electric forces – I have not seen an answer to this yet BTW.
“That his simulations are almost indistinguishable fron known galaxies”
So he jiggled the parameters until be got the shapes he wanted. There is nothing magical about the equations you reference. Valid equations are used in all aspect of modelling from aircraft wings to hopper design.
“with the need to ‘INVENT” dark matter and energy, black holes, and all the other imaginals.”
No, how does this solve the velocity curve problem of galaxies? Black holes are a consequence of gravity which is still absolutely valid. I am not sure that you understand all the theory that you are referring to.
sunsettommy – “But their education does not have a good grounding in the fields of electrical engineering built into it”
How would you know that? This is a sweeping generalisation that is completely invalid. You have no idea of the scope of talent and genius out there.
“Why are B.Sing me? It has long been shown that climate modelers do not know how to factor in a number of climate effects.Such as CLOUDS!
Then too have you bothered to notice that the IPCC posted a range of temperature models for the year 2100 that is spread by a factor of at least 10? LOLOLOLOL…. 1.5C to 5.8C is a huge spread in just a 99 year time frame.”
They can factor them in however they are not sure that they correspond that well with nature at the moment. Try looking more at all the research going on to learn about clouds and how to model them better and less about plasma universes.
BTW the IPCC scenerios are specifically there to explore a range of starting parameters and growth rates. OF COURSE there is going to be a spread – read them please.
“Created the very same types of galaxies that DR. Peratt did in 1990.Using different simulating approaches to get very similar results.”
I can create pretty convincing ones stirring my cappucino however that does not mean that the universe is a coffee cup.
For both of you “correlation does not imply causation” – repeat after me “correlation does not imply causation”.
Jennifer – “Ender, I certainly don’t see things as black and white as you. I applaud the IPCC for trying to get the models to work, I just wish they would acknowledge their very significant limitations.”
Well that is good Jen however the IPCC does not do GCMs – that is the function of research centers. The IPCC produces a report that includes some modelling mainly of scenerios. The researchers using GCMs are the first to acknowledge their limitations. You really need, as a scientist yourself, to distinguish between the scientific literature and the popular press. Often in the press it seems that scientists think their models are perfect however that is the simplification done to report to the public. In the scientific literature the papers have very very specific discussions on the limitations of the models and why the result is valid despite them.
“As regards, Louis’ electric universe, why not hear him out. He is not denying gravity but looking for other factors that may add to our understanding. I don’t see why you should find his sometimes outrageous ideas such a threat.”
I have heard him out however he is doing the scientists that actually work on this stuff a disservice. Practically all of them are mainstream physicists that would be horrified at the sort of thing Louis is peddling. He is misrepresting their work as some new radical theory of the universe. From what I can see and from my limited understanding they are working to explain some things that are not explainable properly by simple gravity. Plasma physics is an important branch of physics and does not need this sort of sensationalism.
Ender
Quoting your Wikipedia:
“The rotation curve of a galaxy can be represented by a graph that plots the orbital velocity of the stars or gas in the galaxy on the y-axis against the distance from the center of the galaxy on the x-axis. Stars revolve around the center of galaxies at a constant speed over a large range of distances from the center of the galaxy. Thus they revolve much faster than would be expected if they were in a free Newtonian potential. The galaxy rotation problem is this discrepancy between the observed rotation speeds of matter in the disk portions of spiral galaxies and the predictions of Newtonian dynamics considering the visible mass. This discrepancy is currently thought to betray the presence of dark matter that permeates the galaxy and extends into the galaxy’s halo.”
The problem is that using Newtonian dynamics they rotate much too fast.
Use Maxwell-Lorentz dynamics using electricity and the problem disappears – no velocity issue. Spiral Galaxies behave like Maxwell homopolar motors.
Now which solution would you prefer – Newtonian dynamics which yields the wrong velocity, or Maxwell_Lorentz electrodynamics which don’t.
Note that they think dark matter is the cause of the discrepancy which disappears when Plasma dynamics are used. Note that they DO NOT KNOW, but plasma theorists have no such problems.
And that is the essential difference between science and pseudoscience – when results turn out not as expected, pseudoscience invokes some hidden, yet to be discovered cause. Proper science uses the right laws, here the laws of Maxwell and Lorentz.
And : “You are not seriously going to argue that the Earth is held in it’s orbit by electric forces – I have not seen an answer to this yet BTW”.
Ender – I think you should study closely the famous 3-Body problem (http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/Flash/Chaos/ThreeBody/ThreeBody.html) and explain to everyone here why Newtonian dynamics has a problem with 3-bodies, and hence n-bodies. I understand that it still hasn’t been solved, but that is the absolute law you believe in.
And when I use the term electric forces I do not use it in the sense of electrostatics.
Ender,
BTW we are all patiently waiting for you to list what I am peddling.
Good question, Louis. There seems to be some vague sense of victory from the libertarian free marketers at their initial success at attacking science in the area of global warming. They are now moving onto cosmology.
Ender; you say “The researchers using GCMs are the first to acknowledge their limitations.” Could you name one? Has Mann repudiated the ‘hockey stick’? On the other hand, it looks as though the AGW model of a cooling stratosphere is happening; the AGW crowd have claimed that, and good on them, but they do tie themselves in knots about the mutlifarious failures elsewhere; the ad hoc adjustments to the AGW model in the face of predictive failures and some major mechanistic controversy is hardly indicative of an open mind about the issue.
Louis – “The problem is that using Newtonian dynamics they rotate much too fast.”
Yes they do however the Dark Matter solves that problem that is why is was postulated. However there is a competing theory called MOND
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics
and others – please not not one of them involves the electric galaxy. You have not shown the predicted velocity curve for the electric galaxy – the shape is not the determining factor, you would have to produce a curve using electric fields alone that matches the observed galaxy velocity curve.
“BTW we are all patiently waiting for you to list what I am peddling.”
Shall I start the list of the things I am waiting for you to produce??????? You are peddling a completely bizarre notion that electric force is the sole shaper of cosmology.
Mainstream theory has gravity as the main glue with electric forces shaping gas flow and maybe even influencing the shape of certain features. Also pulsars, cosmic rays, solar wind, filament jets, some features of planatary moons, and aurora etc are all explained by electro/magnetic plasma physics without resorting to the psuedo science that you seem to thrive on.
cohenite – “Could you name one? Has Mann repudiated the ‘hockey stick’?”
The PCA analysis that is MBH99 is not a computer model so I am not sure what the hell you are talking about. Mann would not repudiate it as it has been confirmed by 6 or 8 subsequent studies. Typical of you to throw in something totally unrelated to throw people off. Give it a miss.
“the ad hoc adjustments to the AGW model in the face of predictive failures and some major mechanistic controversy is hardly indicative of an open mind about the issue.”
You would expect them to fail predictive tests as they are not used for prediction. Failures like this make the models better and spawn new research as to why it failed. They are experimental tools nothing else. A chemist does not blame a bunsen burner for the failure of an experiment.
Ender
Mond assumes the existence of dark matter, and it is only a postulate. Plasma physics explains it using the well known Maxwell homopolar motor model.
I quoted Peratt above who said :”Not only is the universe permeated by plasma and plasma currents but its dynamics are dominated by electromagnetic, not gravitational forces”, A.L. Peratt, “Not with a Bang”, The Sciences Jan/Feb 1990
I am peddling Dr Peratt’s ideas, not mine.
Louis – “Ender – I think you should study closely the famous 3-Body problem”
Of course – as you are completely at a loss throw in something unrelated and try to make it relevant.
Does gravity supply the centripetal force to hold the Earth in it orbit or do electomagnetic forces do it????
Louis – “I quoted Peratt above who said :”Not only is the universe permeated by plasma and plasma currents but its dynamics are dominated by electromagnetic, not gravitational forces”, A.L. Peratt, “Not with a Bang”, The Sciences Jan/Feb 1990″
Good on you Louis however Dr Peratt was referring to such things as filament jets and plasma tubes between planets and moons not that gravity does not hold solar systems and galaxies together.
And no matter what Dr Peratt thinks right at the moment there is not enough evidence to convince the other scientists working in the field that his ideas are correct. If his theories are correct and he and his co-workers convince the scientific community and it becomes mainstream theory I will eat humble pie and acknowledge it, however right now red shifts are produced by receding galaxies from the big bang not from syncrotron radiation from plasmas.
BTW did you notice that he was referring to the COBE satellite not being launched yet? COBE produced results that confirmed a lot of big bang theory earning the investigators the Nobel Prize.
Perhaps you can email Dr Peratt and post the email – that would be interesting.
Ender,
“Does gravity supply the centripetal force to hold the Earth in it orbit or do electomagnetic forces do it????”
I don’t know, but one of the other few things I DO know about, is electromagnetic forces. (being an electrical-electronics engineer)
I actually never thought about this subject,
before Louis introduced it on this blog.
One thing I can assure you of is, that we can produce truly great electromagnetic forces here and now, and using it!
Now, compared to the planetary systems, our electrical systems are like a spot on a pimple on a gnat’s balls, (means, smaller than Richmond’s chances to win this years grand final)
Again I don’t know, but given the scale of the planetary systems, galaxies etc, don’t you find it at least plausible, that electromagnetism, (maybe in conjunction with gravity?) is the main cohesive force?
I’m just thinking aloud mind, I will get some books on the subject though.
I find this quite fascinating.
Ender
The 3-body problem is the well known issue of why only using Newton Dynamics 3 bodys don’t settle down in stable orbits. The link is a neat graphical display of the problem using only Newtons laws. It is called computer simulation.
It is extremely relevent to the problem and why I introduced it.
Ender; I don’t want to distract from Louis’s theme, but your comments on Mann and IPCC GCM’s are far too sanguine. The Hockey Stick was the vindicative data of the GCM’s and cannot be extricated from them; as to your claims of its veracity and validation by subsequent studies Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre would be astounded; and so would I if you could point to one non-GISS based such validation.
As to GCM’s generally; the world is threatened with massive social/political/economic/upheavel because of AGW; AGW is predicated on modelling and forecast disasters unless change occurs; the mantra has been that the science is settled and decrees are to be forthcoming on the basis of this consensus; every predictive failure is an indictment of this scenario; it is disingenuous to claim the modelling is not meant to be predictive; if it isn’t what is its purpose? If the models are not settled why is there such a rush to implement measures to avert the predicted disasters? The modelling has been a failure by any standards and such failure taints the science behind it. This link is to a study of all the predictions and forecasts from the modelling, which also looks at the data sources which the models utilise:
http://www.itia.ntua.gr/getfile/850/3/documents/2008EGU_ClimatePredictionPrSm.pdf
Louis is pushing of the cogency envelope and that’s creative, could be high art or jinks. Perhaps sometimes we are not crazy enough.
Paul Feyerabend: “Aristotelians … demanded strong empirical support while the Galileans were content with far-reaching, unsupported and partially refuted theories. I do not criticize them for that; on the contrary, I favour Niels Bohr’s “this is not crazy enough.””
Knowledge is multifarious. Like STJ and Ender, I tend to get militantly imperialistic about empirical knowledge based on the scientific method and toss it down like a trump card in the face of every jester I encounter. But there are other ways of knowing besides a strict adherence to only that which can be measured.
I watched a dust devil wander across a burnt paddock this afternoon and wondered if it was caused by an electrical interface rather than the usual heat transfer explanation. Thank you, Louis for expanding my consciousness a notch.
What frightens Ender, SJT and others (myself included) are claims made that the entire foundation of modern cosmology has to be rubbished to make way for a starling new theory that doesn’t seem to fit the observations. But it’s far worse than just that.
On a starry night when explaining to my son the features of the Milky Way and he asks, “Dad, why is there a galaxy?”
I don’t start with, “on the first day God…” Instead I start with something like: “We really don’t know, son, because our scientists can’t see that far back in time with their telescopes, but they have an idea that on the first day of the universe, there was nothing, no time, no space, no light, no matter…” and so on into the typical lay person’s spiel about the Big Bang, condensing gases forming stars and galaxies.
It’s not science. But don’t disrespect it as an invalid form of knowledge, because if you do, you are denying that which makes you human as valid. It’s a “myth” and it gives meaning to human life…How it all started…Who we are… Where we are going. Human beings need to have a handle on the cosmological dimension of their existence to make life worth living. This is one of the fundamental hungers of humanity—to possess a sense of meaning and purpose and you can’t hope to have meaning or purpose if you don’t know where you are or why you exist or how you got here.
Myth is commonly used to mean something false, but in the sense that Carl Jung and Sir James Frazer used the term—a myth is a holistic worldview in which all things are contextualized, including ALL empirical based knowledge systems. You cannot easily step outside your mythological framework.
Jennifer asked why Ender felt threatened. It’s because Louis is threatening that mythological fabric with his new fangled theory of the electric everything. One cosmology never yields to the next without a fight to the death.
But let’s not confuse a titanic clash of cosmological mythologies with the mundane grunt work of empirical climatology. The two are utterly different orders of epistemologies and completely unrelated. Perhaps we should get back to work now.
Wes,
I am honoured to be held responsible for this new cosmology, but a plain reading of the facts proves merely that I am a simple messenger. It’s Birkeland, Langmuire, Alfven, Peratt, Lerner and a host of top plasma physicists who propose this – not this mere geoscientist.
How any of you, with the available evidence, conclude that I have invented these ideas is quite beyond my comprehension – I have done no such thing.
Why pillory me when it’s the ideas that have to be debated, and why don’t my critics get off their collectives and do some research in order to understand the theories behind the Plasma Universe; the documentation is there in abundance.
Isn’t it useful to make oneself familiar with the plasma literature in order to sink my arguements?
But like Gallileo’s critics, who refused to look through his telescopes at the sky, so mine here so as well, refusing to look at the evidence in the published scientific literature.
And I disagree with your concluding sentence, they are not. Plasma phenomena can be shown to scale from the micro to the macro and if earth’s weather is fundamentally electrically driven, then any theory purporting to link emission of CO2 with climate is bound to have problems.
I think Ender senses this, thus his over-excited reaction to any post I make.
Wes, I was enjoying your ramblings until you came to the end and then suggested ‘cosmic myths’ and ’empirical climatology’ are unrelated. I suspect if we had a better understanding of climatology in particular cosmic rays and cloud formation we might also have a more relevant ‘cosmic myth’?
Louis – “I think Ender senses this, thus his over-excited reaction to any post I make.”
Actually Louis I share your unease about Dark Matter. Calling into existence 95% of matter that cannot be seen or detected to me seem reminiscent of the luminiferous aether of the 19th century. It was called into existence to carry electromagnetic waves. It does seem extremely dodgy. The aether was overturned by a couple of classic experiments and an obscure patent clerk from Bern. Dark matter may well go the same way – maybe by one of your ideas however right at the moment it does not seem that they have garnered much support.
Your researchers may well overturn some of the ideas and/or some of the other theories such as MOND. However like relativity will build on Newton and the rest of physics rather than replacing it.
If you were a bit more restrained about promoting this idea and did not make such wild claims about it then you would probably receive a better reception. It the manner that you deliver it, not the message that raised most of the objections.
Ok. I shall end this thread here. And we can all do some reading and thinking until Louis sends me Part 3.