Untitled

Why Dark Matter is Really Tacky on Tacky on …..

I will just state as postulate that a mass field [aka 'gravity well'] has reduced space exactly proportional to slowed time which keeps the geometric progress of photonic PWs consistent from all frames of reference with the caveat of redirection.

Black Holes:

By the above postulate a BH [Black Hole] doesn't have an event 'horizon' of any 3D physical extent and is in fact a spatial singularity from a 3D POV where time ceases to make any orderly forward progress.

In 3D space there are 3 dimensions of space, X, Y & Z. If anyone of those dimensions goes to zero that is an infinitely smaller amount of space than where all 3 dimensions have greater than zero values/extents.

So 'infinite' density must be understood from that POV. The event singularity is a dimensional discontinuity.

A BH's event singularity is likely temporally a fuzzy moment oscillating backwards & forwards in time.

What is the progression of time from 1) deepest empty space, where time is going fastest, to 2) the BH's event singularity, where time is essentially stopped, to 3) the interior of the BH…

Time is going backwards or at least correlates with going backwards.

To in any coherent way to go backward in time something must have already gone forward in [a] time [sequence].

Crossing over from the contracted sub-3D space of an inner mass field to what is the logical progression?

2D space. [2D manifold]

It could be some kind of image of the stuff that froze to absolute zero & fell through the event singularity.

It is as if one turned space-time inside out, but the only organized space that can be maintained at all in all that tremendous density is a 2D space

& that level of sequential location ordering [& position variability/ambiguity] is only possible because it is a 2D under surface leaning against positive 3D space-time.

Note: Quantum elements don't seem to have problems with lower dimensionality. Artificial atoms [electron shells] are sometimes made in 2D formations.

The stuff in the BH that was formerly matter may be traveling as an image parallel & adjacent, but backwards to its former trajectories, but at luminal proximate speeds so as to be largely inconsequential to my point.

The universe is stacking plates as the temporal progression.

A BH's interior is not unstacking those plates it is just visiting/referencing those plates in the inverse order in which they were stacked.

Photonic Probability Waves:

We talk & think about photons as if they move in paths through space [& time],

but in reality it is probability waves that expand luminally with all the probabilities on the surface of a growing 3D sphere.

The photon is the terminal collapse event of that probability wave & all (most) of our talk about what photons 'do' & 'paths' they take is very inaccurate.

We attribute 'photons' with infered characteristics, but that's not really correct.

The speed of light is the speed of omnidirectional expansion of a photonic/EM probability wave.

While there is a location point for the PW's [Probability Wave's] origin, the point where we see a photon on our retinas is just a single point on a PW sphere surface that can be 26 billion light-years across, all collapsing there, instantaneously in our eyeball.

So now let's think about what happens when a photonic PW crosses a BH event singularity.

That portion of the [divergent] photonic PW is transformed/inverted into a [convergent] tachyonic Certainty Wave [CW].

Just as probabilities of a PW get condensed towards an external center of mass, inside a BH that condensation continues, probably in some accelerated fashion.

Initially the tachyonic CW (portion) travels through the 2D space closest to the BH event singularity, away from the singularity.

I do believe that the CW portion of the PW-CW does lose energy and accelerate. Photons [photonic PWs] can lose energy when they are split into 2 or more photonic PWs. I will leave the energy loss as an open question for now.

The tachyonic portion of the PW-CW accelerates until the space around it continues to shrink towards a 1D, sub-absolute zero, virtually frictionless linear space.

It traces backwards through its former locations in space, in its immediately adjacent parallel space under the surface of 3D space-time.

It quite possibly accelerates to infinity exactly as it arrives at/next-to its origin position where upon it annihilates.

Annihilation means it collapses the the entire PW-CW & releases a tiny packet of backward time and 1D space. This almost certainly slows time and dimensionally shrinks space which are the two primary characteristics of a mass field.

This is what causes the mass field attributed to the mythical 'Dark Matter'.

The PW-CW is a race between the PW portion & the CW (tachyonic) portion as to which collapses first.

If one considers it, some photonic PWs expand to more than 26 billion light-years without a collapse & the odds of it intersecting a BH seem pretty likely & with superluminal speeds for the tachyonic CW (portion) & a definitive termination point, my guess is a good portion of PW-CWs favor the tachyonic annihilation ['dark matter'] outcome over the observed photon outcome.

This would fit pretty well with the fact that 'dark matter' attributed mass is around 80% of all apparent mass.

Odd thought: Would the night sky be significantly brighter if such a preponderance of PW-CWs weren't consumed as tachyonic outcomes?

Some photonic PWs must intersect more than one BH prior to collapse.

Keep in mind the CW tachyon portion of the wave gets to speed superluminally to its certain termination point. The photonic PWs portions encounter all that tremendous collapse-free empty space.

The reason all this activity creates an orderly concentric gradient of time-dilation & contracted space around the BH is because photonic PWs originating close to the BH have a much higher probability of making the loop from photonic PW through the BH and back as a tachyonic CW collapses.

The proportion of annihilations are densest/richest closest around the BH, but start at slightly removed distance [lightyears] because all of the photonic PWs start at a minimum from the innermost orbiting stars.

The PW-CWs are all looped through the BH, but all the annihilations start at the shortest stellar distances from the BH, where they are densest and roughly becoming less dense further away from the BH.

Hypothetically if a BH suddenly popped into the middle of a cloud of stars it would take some number of years for the DM effect to show up. The inner stars orbits would first demonstrate the gravitational effect & gradually a weaker gravitational effect would migrate outward as further origined photonic PWs made the loop to annihilating CWs.

How is that Tachyons can Travel Superluminally?

Tachyons don't travel anymore than photons travel.

What travels is a superposition wave, namely a probability wave with a possible convergent certainty wave portion of it.

Inside a BH is incredible density.

There actually isn't any 3D space in a BH. There is only space created by pulling, stretching stuff backwards in time, & the space created is at most 2 dimensional.

A convergent tachyonic wave is this little bit of space rippling through tremendous density.

Imagine a row of standing lead dominoes. The tachyon wave is the top of those dominoes knocking into one another. The closer the dominoes are together the faster they fall in sequence & that means that space that is rippling can move faster (as the 'tachyon').

But it's a wave & a contracting wave at that, so imagine 3 dominoes across falling into the next 3 dominoes then eventually 2 dominoe collision sets that eventually become a single line of dominoes falling & getting faster in the process.

Photonic PWs have all that ordered space they have to swim through like baggage dragging, giving them a luminal speed limit.

A tachyonic CW has the tiniest bit of space & that shrinks as it accelerates.

Sound travels faster in dense water than in air.

The speed of transmission of movement in density occupying virtually no differentiated locations can approach infinity. Everywhere is adjacent to everywhere else all in the same dimensionless point.

Orthogonally the geometry makes no sense to us, but it makes the same geometric [non-]sense as quantum entanglement. (so it is no worry to me.)

Now for the ugly consequences of my proposal…

A star radiates light from a certain position. A round trip from photonic PW to tachyonic CW is going to be about the same for any radiation from that position.

That means there will be a trailing mass sphere/divit some number of years behind the star's pathway.

If it takes 10 years for a photonic PW wave to intersect a BH & (guessing) 3 years to return as a tachyonic CW, that means the star's DM mass shadow will be 13 years of its travel distance behind it.

My guess is that the DM shadow will disapate, spread out, but there would be a fairly distinct star/sphere shaped shadow on the leading edge of that trailing location.

One could have matter falling into a star's trailing mass shadow for no apparent reason.

And if that mass shadow crosses a cloud of hydrogen it might help initiate star formation there?

Would that increase the odds that a star might follow a leading star while resting in its trailing mass shadow?

Also if a BH is moving the secondary ('DM') mass field ('shadow') from it will lag behind it, somewhat off its BH of origin.

Notes on Time:

In a nutshell time is a correlation with a [kind of?] frequency/frequencies.

[Footnote: The driving reason for contemplating this & other topics is to understand black hole interiors and how that relates to the 'dark matter'/mass phenomenon.]

The universe [we believe] is expanding.

The belief is that it started out as a dimensionless point, a singularity.

It was dense, hyper, unimaginably dense, compacted like the hardest of hard solid crystals.

Its resonant frequency would have been impossibly high at that first instant.

That starting state expands the smallest sub-plank length possible.

The frequency lowers one fractional iota.

Temporal frequencies are almost certainly higher than even gravity waves.

Time [passage] is a kind of scale of descending frequencies.

With the universe as a whole these are absolutely perfect, noise-free frequencies.

They ring like absolutely perfect unachievable bell tones, that we can only imagine.

Their closest imitation in the universe we know is in the interior of supermassive black holes.

BHs [Black Holes] sing & ring in as nearly possibly closely to [some of] those perfect noise-free previous bell tones of the universe.

The bell tones of the universe are so perfect as to be silent. They are the most calm, smooth things ever. They are beyond our capacity to hear.

BHs are the most noise-free, ultra cold, unified potential energy [that we know of] in the universe.

The deeper into all that density compaction they ring & sing at incredibly high frequencies. They correlate with past instants of the universe except they probably have the tiniest amount of additional noise.

Traversing into the interiors of BHs correlates with some close approximation of an inverse sequence of some [possibly limited] extent of time.

Uncertainty is a kind of noise or at least the opening to noise.

Uncertainty happens at the intersection of extents of space & spans of time.

Perhaps more concisely uncertainty happens/occurs with [because of?] transitions from one temporal frequency to the next temporal frequency in/with a non-zero spatial extent.

If the temporal frequencies are strictly discrete in character that would make them sort of quantum, but maybe it's a continuous analog spectrum of frequency.

If time is discrete in character it would imply some structural element, although analog requires its own slightly different kind of structuring.

BH interiors are not previous instants of the universe, but they so closely imitate those instants to be localized fuzzy windows back to the universe's earlier instants.

In the large scheme this implies we live on the slightly uncertain surface of the silently expanding perfect singularity that is the time sequence that is the universe.

If universe inflation occurred it must have been a cliff fall of frequency.

Maybe that left patches of space-time rooted back to those higher skipped pre-inflation frequencies and are the source of ultra massive BHs in the early universe.

Supermassives are noise-free stacks of potential, frozen, unrealized energy/mass.

I'm not sure if that means those supermassives root into a portion of the past that didn't happen for the rest of the universe.

Because the universe is expanding the the only way to reverse time is to shrink the entire universe which is essentially impossible.

[Using the universe to shrink the universe is paradoxical.]

It does raise the question could something reverse time on a local, limited scale?

I'm sure it would be mind bendingly difficult.

Would that allow/cause 'downtime'/subsequent resequencing & would that sync up with the rest of the universe or not?

Converse viewpoint, the universe is a perfect singularity & the entropic fluid it floats/swims in is gradually soaking into it.?

Wild fantasy thought, If one could pierce a BH with a needle of compacted noise/entropy could one release some [or all?] of a BH's potential energy?

All i need is to find or make some organized entropy…..

The End ……. for now.

Even with Rubbersheets

Moving on from the 'pizza slice' physics theory …..

We will learn why physicists can not be trusted with rubbers[heets]

Most of you have seen that [STUPID] rubber sheet illustration that is supposed 'explain' [questionable word usage] mass fields [aka 'gravitywells'] & gravity.

In that stupidity the rubber sheet is supposed to represent space-time.

Taking that literally it means a mass field bends/stretches into a higher dimension which creates more/additional space [& more/extended time] which is exactly the opposite of what is actually going on.

To do a rubber sheet illustration [more] correctly what one does is cut the Schwarzschild radius out of the rubber sheet and then stretch the cut circular edge together into a single point.

In a mass field there is less space, it's shrinking, getting 'straighter', getting shorter, getting tighter going into a lower dimensionality.

What it is not doing is stretching into greater space & more time, curving into a higher dimension.

Space-time means less/shorter time coexists with less/shorter space.

Geometry & Space-time

Understanding the Geometry:

When one thinks about gravity what one takes away is that it is convergent in character. It [tends to] draw(s) [mass] bodies together/closer.

Thinking about a funnel it takes fluid matterial from a greater space/volume containment to a smaller/lesser space/volume.

We think of space as being fully Euclidean 3D.

Imagine if a paper sheet factory made a mistake. That the sheet movers got slowly jammed up.

The front of the prospective sheet was virtually 2 dimensionally flat, but as the movement slowed the sheet got thicker and thicker with paper pulp until it was a 3D wedge shape on the other end.

If one traces from the 2D end to the 3D end one is going from lower dimension to higher dimension.

Conversely if one traces from the 3D end to the 2D end one is going from higher dimension to lower dimension.

On the 2D end there are less options on one's thickness position. On the 3D end there are more options on one's thickness position.

Going from 2D to 3D is divergent which means there is less predictiveness as our thickness position options increase.

Going from 3D to 2D the thickness options decrease [converge] which increases the degree of certainty/predictability.

This hypothetical universe in paper illustrates adding or subtracting a dimension,

It is non-Euclidean, non-orthogonol in character.

Gravity is convergent.

Gravity demonstrates a dimensional transition from higher [fully Euclidean 3D] to something less than fully 3D [ --->2.9 - 2.7 - 2.5 - 2.3…. D].

Probability Waves:

A mass field is radial/circular in configuration.

So the fact that probability waves get denser with the passage of time on the side closer to an external center of mass means the center of probability moves towards any external center of mass.

Mass's time-dilation is concentric in form.

Now think about a slice of pizza.

The shape of time-dilation around a center of mass is going to move the probability wave towards the sharp point of the pizza slice.

So the probability wave is shrinking along the longwise axis of the slice, but it is also shrinking crosswise as the slice gets narrower & narrower.

The probability wave occupies less space [& less time] as it gets closer to an external center of mass.

The probability wave is shrinking and moving towards lower dimensionality.

It is condensing, consolidating, converging [towards a point].

The physical shrinkage of space in a mass field is exactly proportional to the changes in the time speed there.

Very precise measuring will demonstrate it.

The Sun's interior [vs exterior] higher rotation speed is extant evidence of the fact.

I'm running low on steam & will terminate this diatribe,

In all certainty Covid-19 is a GMO.

Covid-19 has 4 positive amino acids in a row on one of its external spike proteins, which is what causes it to be so infectious to humans.

4 positive amino acids in a row is unheard of in natural corona viruses. Three positive amino acids in a row is rare in natural coronaviruses.

The closest thing in the wild was 3.2% different from Covid-19 & it was found in Laos. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/closest-known-relatives-of-virus-behind-covid-19-found-in-laos/ In the original un-self-censored version of the report in 'Nature' that virus found in Laos was, [paraphrasing] "forty to seventy years of evolution different from Covid-19".

Covid-19 was infectiously hot to humans right out of the box. There was never a period where it [naturally] adapted to become more infectious to humans.

People [& 60 Minutes] have looked for any trail of infection between the horseshoe bat caves & Wuhan [400km] & not found a single sick animal, farmer or truck driver.

So the pseudoscience, self deluded narcissists that insist Covid-19 was purely an accident of natural origins are flying around on bullpucky.

All the evidence points to a virus being intentionally lab designed for infectiousness to humans using CRISPR [genetic engineering], & all the things/evidence one would expect from natural origins ['zooanotic'] are not there.

Gravity Blues:

Having stuck my ego out their i now feel [self] pressured to figure out & arrive at all the likely ramifications (before anyone else, as if anyone actually cared)

Who's neurotic? …not me.

Based on my outline/sketch of a probability waves progress in a time-dilation gradient,

I'm pretty confident that that means over time a probability wave that is getting deeper into a center of mass condenses/consolidates as it progresses.

Which means it loses some of its uncertainty. I believe the probability wave will actually shrink both in time & in space.

It becomes less of a probability and closer to some approximate certainty.

Probability sidebar:

Space-time is possibly a byproduct of probability waves.

Space without time is a certainty & time without space is also a certainty.

Probabilities can only exist with the intersection of space and time.

Only superposition probability waves hang in ambiguous space-time, collapsed waves have arrived at [a] certainty.

Gravity Blues:

Anyway back to condensed probability waves.

I believe that a condensed photon would be a higher frequency than before condensation.

A photon can't gain vector inertia, but it can gain frequency/energy.

To me only an exchange of energy is 'gravity'.

Orbiting at equilibrium a photon or mass body is simply following the non-Euclidean geometry of space-time/relativity which i personally would distinguish from energy exchanging 'gravity'. Call me persnicative why don't you.

Based on that a photon falling towards an external center of mass will be slightly blue shifted & a photon leaving a mass field will be[come] red shifted.

So if two telescopes, 1) an infra-red Earth surface based & 2) the James Webb telescope viewed the same object in space the ground based telescope would see the object a tiny bit bluer than the deeper space based telescope would.

This is due to the time dilation gradient of the Earth.

Shrinking Space:

Since a probability wave shrinks deep in a mass field this supports my assertion that not only is time dilated in a mass field, but the space there is also contracted/shrunken.

Assertion: If time passes at 9/10ths the rate of somewhere else then local space occupies 9/10ths of that somewhere else.

The hard evidence that there is less space in a mass than Euclidean ideation would expect is the fact that the Sun's interior rotates 4 times faster than its exterior. https://www.astronomy.com/science/the-suns-core-rotates-faster-than-its-surface/

Time dilation alone would make the Sun's interior seem to rotate slower [not faster] there due to the slower passage of time there, to us external viewers.

The/a logical reason why it would rotate faster on its interior is because there is less space for it to rotate in.

An ice skater rotates faster as they reduce the occupied radius of their spin.

The angular momentum is distributed over a shorter-distance/less-space.

In a mass field 2pi*r no longer is absolute because the space is not Euclidean normal there.

The circumference per the radius will be greater than that formula predicts.

Around Earth my assertion can be tested by measuring the altitude [additional radius] to a set of satellites that encircle the globe and then measure the circumference they measure of their satellite to satellite distances.

I'm confident that circumference will exceed the expected calculation of 2pi*r. [Earth surface + altitude = r (radius).]

The Earth's radii will be found to be shorter than Euclidean normal geometry predicts, just like the Sun.

Back to blue gravity,

a photon driving into a mass field is encountering less space so its energy-packet/wavelength gets compressed into that less space [& slowed time] which raises its frequency. It crushes/compresses a long wavelength into shorter space which raises its frequency. Think accordion.

Its a little ambiguous as to how much of the frequency shift is from slowed time & how much is a function of shrunken space.

There are additional ramifications of shrunken space, but I'll leave that for another day.

In opening my blogging 'mouth' I have caused myself to think about what i said, only from a different perspective.

When i talked about my probability wave explanation of gravity i was thinking of a non-zero mass particle at rest in a time-dilation gradient.

In my imagination gravity imparts actual additional vector inertia, an actual energy exchange upon a mass particle/body as it is accelerated towards an external center of mass. [or conversely removes vector energy as a mass body moves away from an external center of mass.]

Which [perhaps wrongly] in my imagination is separate and distinct from photons following the non-Euclidean geometry of relativity.

Because the probability wave explanation [also] describes why a photon's trajectory proximate to a mass field would arc/curve around it.

A photon can't accelerate, so it can't gain any vector energy so in my mind it just follows the non-Euclidean geometry of space-time/relativity,

which is not what I would label 'gravity'.

Do photons lose or gain frequency energy [which would also mean relative mass] moving towards or away from an external center of mass?

Actually thinking about things always raises [more] questions, arrgghh!

Gravity is a simple byproduct of a time-dilation gradient.

Mechanical explanation:

Mass particles of matter objects are held by electromagnetic framing.

Above absolute zero these mass particles vibrate. To keep it simple and clear we will see the mass particles moving back and forth in (their) intervals..

The mass particle tugs back & forth on its electromagnetic framing.

Out in space without a time-dilation gradient there is no net effect from those vibrations.

[Aligning the interval pointing directly into the external center of mass] In a time dilation gradient we will measure how long the mass particle spends in each half of its interval.

We can use any clock as long as it remains at a fixed time speed.

Because time is going slower on the half of the interval closest to the external center of mass the clock will measure the mass particle spending longer there than it spends on the other half of the interval further from the external center of mass.

That means the mass partcle tugs its electromagnetic framing towards the external center of mass more/longer than it pulls it in the opposite direction.

The time-dilation gradient is quadratic which means the gravitational effect is accelerative.

Probability wave explanation:

A particle's probability wave without a time-dilation gradient gradually linearly expands through time.

Now let's put that probability wave in a time-dilation gradient.

We will look at one millionth of a second from the side of that probability wave that is furthest from the external center of mass.

On the side of the probability wave closest to the external center of mass we have to start that millionth of a second a little sooner & end it a little later because time is going slower there.

OK, so what?

Now we examine the very next millionth of a second per the side of the probability wave furthest from the external center of mass. Again on the other side of the probability wave we have to start it sooner & end it later.

That means the probabilities on the side closest to the external center of mass are getting doubled up, overlapping.

The probabilities closest to the external center of mass are denser, more probable there, which means the center of probability shifts in the direction of the external center of mass.

Confession & Revelation,

ok a smidge over dramatic ;)

Revelation,

Quick[er] cooling of fission nuclear reactors can likely be achieved without the headaches of highly reactive sodium & potassium.

The take-away on examining a sodium potassium fission nuclear reactor is to have

QUICK[er] COOLING

one must

CHANGE/MORPH THE GEOMETRY

of the uranium [or plutonium] so it isn't cross reacting. So the freed neutrons from one decay event are very unlikely to fly off & hit another uranium nucleus & cause it to decay as a result.

One doesn't have to use a sodium & potassium fluid to do this, one can use mechanical re-arrangement instead.

my perception is that most nuclear fuel assemblies [arrangement of fuel rods] is a long shaft of rods in a square footprint.

To make this adaptable to re-arranging one needs merely make the assemblies into rows of fuel rods that can be slid face to face to create the square footprint for maximum heating/interaction and then slid out of the square footprint into edge to edge [long flat plane] arrangements to facilitate a greatly reduced cross reaction of uranium.

i realize that fiddling with nuclear fuel assemblies is not something one wants to do casually, but the fact that it will probably reduce the cross interactions by perhaps 80 to 90 percent make it more than worth the effort.

[for the centrally positioned fuel rods -> 360 degrees of a circle minus 20 degrees for the two rods either side on the row makes a 340/360 proportion difference; 94% possible reduction;

for the corner fuelrods -> 90 degrees minus 20 degrees proportionally 70/90; 77% possible reduction; for the mid-outside fuelrods 180 degrees minus 20 degrees is a proportion of 160/180; 88% possible reduction]

If i am approximately correct this could probably done as a retro-fit and be incorporated into all future designs to make a vastly safer design of fission reactors.

It wouldn't be as quick cool as a sodium potassium nuclear fission reactor, but would go a very good margin in that direction.

I don't know if this might be used as an alternative to dropping carbon rods or not, but it's a possibility.

definitely for maintainence shutdowns this makes sense

& most importantly

for emergency shutdowns the ability to much more quickly cool the core elements to avoid meltdown is absolutely critical.

if the above is correct it could be the most potentially useful of all my diatribe(s).

Now my Embarassing Confession

& why one should exercise caution if reading/listening to my off the cuff 'conclusions'.

you may know my complete dismissal of dark matter,

well ...

i probably opened my mouth & inserted my foot prematurely.

While i cited that dark matter has no effect on Sun local orbits/trajectories, this doesn't actually contradict current proposals of dark matter,

because in the vicinity of the Sun the expected as well as the proposed curvature/gravity is the same.

My bad. :(

With expected gravity [our planets around the Sun] the inner orbits are very fast where gravity is strong and the outer planets take hundreds of years to orbit where gravity is weak.

But the general approximation of observed galactic stellar action is all the stars rotate somewhat more like a CD disk, a phonograph record. Their RPU [Rotation Per Unit] is much more similar than it is with the gravity we observe locally.

The proposal of dark matter is a flat ring of matter that center on the galaxy's black hole.

It is hypothesized that this ring of dark matter pulls the stars that are close to the galactic center outward [slower orbit speed] & stars far from the galactic center inward [faster orbit speed].

And technically it works & may be correct,

but it has real challanges to overcome.

Dark Matter is hypothesized only for purposes of crafting an altered shape of gravity.

it seems to have no optical properties.

Why don't we find it clumping up around planets & stars?

why doesn't it migrate towards itself & the center of the galaxy over time?

Dark matter creates tremendous gravity, but itself seems unaffected by gravity?

another surprising property.

A ring of matter is both hard to produce & harder to sustain over billions of years.

Would it be orbiting with centripedal force to sustain the hollow center ring shape?

And this happens repeatedly for galaxy after galaxy?

We should find dark matter [if not its net gravity] in Earth's vicinity. So far no sign of it.

It seems likely that aggregated matter ring would constantly short-cut [self attract on a chord of a circle] the circular arc so it would likely contract over time even with orbital centripedal force.

How is it that this ring of matter is concentric & stays concentric with the center of all these m-o-v-i-n-g galaxies yet it is hollow/void in its own center?

Did the central black hole form by eating out the ring's center of dark matter? maybe but the mass would be all wrong.

I am pretty sure the black hole's mass/gravity is still far too tiny to fit with a uniform disk of dark matter cummulating all of the center portion to the central black hole.

the central black hole repells dark matter?

repelled by Hawking's radiation?

this might keep cycling dark matter ring concentric, but requires another unknown physics property.

I will include the fact that the size of each galactic central black hole seems to be proprotional to each amount of dark matter,

which points to some kind of interdependence.

Dark matter guides growth of supermassive black holes | Astronomy ...

www.astronomy.com › News

I will pose a different speculation,

namely that the

differentiated gravitational axises of stars may explain it.

the easiest way to conceptualize 3D space as the surface of a 4D domain is to scale it all down one dimension.

Think of space as the 2D surface [rubber sheet] that rests/floats in a 3D domain.

gravity's axis, at least as far as we have encountered it, is generally perpendicular to the/our local space 'horizon'.

think of a wire perpendicular to the rubber sheet that pushes the rubber sheet into a curved funnel shape. [arcing conic if you will]

since we know at pangalactic scales space is curved, necessarily, gravity [pushing wires] that are locally perpendicular are not going to be parallel to one another.

NOW think of a wire that encounters the rubber sheet in a not completely perpendicular direction, say at 45 degrees to illustrate.

the rubber sheet directly under the incline of the wire is tightest and the part immediately opposite is more relaxed/loose.

the black hole(s) at the center of the galaxy/galaxies extends, theoretically to infinity under the horizon of the rubber sheet pulling it almost to a straight line with no visible bottom ending.

i speculate that there is some influence of the black hole(s) that cause stellar gravity axises' lower/deeper end to be drawn towards the black hole's linear stretch.

there is also a counter property of the top of a gravity axis to stay relatively fixed in its spatial location.

while all the stars of a galaxy have some draw of the bottom of their gravity axis to the black holes, out away from the black hole this effect makes a more differentiated, noticible angle.

the stars near the black hole have their gravity axis bottom almost imperceptibly pulled in, which is still nearly parallel to the black hole's gravity axis [very little net change].

the outer stars have more freedom of space to flex so the gravity axis angle towards the black hole's gravity axis is acute.

the stars near the black hole are dealing with very taut, stretched space due to the black hole's infinite utilization/pull of that space and the top of their gravity axis is drawn/held towards the black hole which actually counters the pull of their gravity axis's bottom end and they form an obtuse angle of gravity axis per the black hole's gravity axis.

The acute angle of the outer stars works to make them drawn at the surface [which is our 3D 'space'] towards the black hole's surface position.

their gravities compliment, add to one another.

the obtuse angle of the central stars' gravity axises make their gravity work in opposition to the central black hole's gravity.

their black hole mutual gravity is in opposition/antagonism so the effect is subtractive.

the outer stars have their 'gravity' to the center seemingly increased, & the stars near the black hole have their 'gravity' towards the black hole seemingly decreased,

but it is somewhat more complicated than simple gravity alone.

understand that for the proposed gravity axises i am indicating there is only a single location of intersection with 3D space. all else falls completely outside of the space-time in which we exist.

not sure if this can even be detected, except maybe using some clever innovative method(s).

one could see if the gravity curves around selected stars was not completely symmetric & if that asymmetry fit the/my prescribed speculation. [the orientation was towards or away from the central blackhole of the galaxy.]

and with ego well out of hand i will say this holds up at least as well as 'dark matter' & all the hurdles & hoops 'dark matter' would have to jump through to be correct.

i still hold to my earlier proposition that the Sun's interior has less space than is indicated by its exterior form, but that is very possibly unrealted to the galactic centric effect.

further rattling onward,

the planet's gravities may be mostly due to surface 3D space conditions, because their funnels are more shallow [subject most exclusively to surface conditions], or it could be the draw of the gravity axis bottom could be related to fusion. totally up for grabs. fusion tends to need deep gravity compression so it may be difficult to parse one way or the other.

either of the listed explanations pose problems for exoplanets orbiting the outer stars of the galaxy. My speculation may also hold problems for exoplanets stably orbiting stars in the center of the galaxy.

i have command of the universe! . . . . well, in my own imagination @@

thank goodness i am not as pompous as herds of self patronizing academics,

i am MORE pompous & self patronizing & twice as boring! lol

Why torturing for information fails all logic tests:

1) The frailty & incredibly dodgy aspect of the biological memory process.

The memory process is stored in fragile structures of chemistry, electricity & genetics.

It is extremely prone to physiological inconsistencies.

It is easily damaged by physical trauma.

It is extremely affected by psychology, social pressure & influences, immediate emotions & distorted by deep roots of experience [phobias, biases, etc.].

In short it is not very reliable,

One hundred times so under duress.

2) The 'importance metric' variance from person to person.

Each person is very different in what they consider 'important', ie. the things they choose to not forget.

Genetics, culture, individual experience & interpretations thereof affect what we think is significant & what is especially important to remember.

3) The complete mismatch between trans-dimensional diffuse, complex reality and our moronic idea(s) of the clunky 'certain', 'eternal', 'truth'.

We all have this reflex notion that the truth is a singular, absolute, eternal, [relativily] simple & clear.

If you beat things all around & shatter them the truth will magically pop out whole & intact, like a cartoon?

The 'sword of truth', if you will.

Wow! What could be further from the actual truth?

An examination of physical reality has it very complex. Avagadro's number [ 10^23] is the number of hydrogen atoms in a gram of hydrogen, & if you have that much measured hydrogen, very likely it is not all 100% hydrogen, adding to more complex messiness.

Actual reality is complicated. Some things hold together into managible mostly singular coherent constructs. Even those things can break under certain conditions at the right location.

Important portions of reality are very diffuse, like the oxygen laden air we need to breathe to sustain life & consciousness.

Think about the electro-polar electro-static storm that is a single drop of life sustaining water.

Electrons have various spin & other quantum characteristics. Other atomic particles are made up of some recipe of several quarks with their specific quantum states.

Quasi-particles are coming into & out of existence all the time which causes the casimir effect, when two flat plates are a too short distance apart for these quasi-particles to emerge from & the external pressure pushes them together.

Think about all the micro-gravity wells around each atom that aggregate together to create large object gravity wells.

Trying to comprehend all the total complexity of even some macro-scale limited span of all this is impossible.

Now imagine the very likely possiblity that other universes exist somewhere[somewhen?] else & then what ever might exist as reject detritus between universes.

Coherence is always transitory at best.

Wouldn't suprise me a bit if the speed of light & other so-called 'constants' gradually change over the long spans of the universe.

Actual complete truth is incomprehensible.

Our brains want & probably psychologically need to believe exactly the opposite.

One of the main functions of the brain is to find extremely simplified behaviors to deal with an incomprehensibly complex reality. Luckily that works well enough often enough to make it mostly worth the effort.

4) How are the murky thought processes of torturers 'deciding' which victim screams are the 'truth' or not?

The torturer is aledgedly torturing the victim precisely because they DON'T know what the truth is.

Yet they have already decided this victim knows some objectified 'truth' they care about.

Wow! how exactly does that make logical sense? it doesn't. They are psychic? Prescient? They guess? They hope?

Flag waving lovers of fascism flying blind, not a stepwise structure of logic.

Torture is not done by sensible people.

Torturers don't dare admit they screwed up, e - v - e - r , because then the public will see it is an outrageous, horrific war crime by villains in power.

How the heck do they supposedly 'know' what the 'truth' is when they hear it?

Isn't is about 100 times more likely they halt the torture when they hear something juicy they WANT to believe, or think their bosses will want to hear.

What one wants to hear is independent of actual facts.

Isn't most probable a victim is fabricating melodramas to stop the pain? Managing to believe them so to deliver them with conviction.

The victim most often rattles on & on till some particular litany halts the source of pain.

The torturer's rabid, ballistic brain is going to be the delicate compass of what the actual, delicate, empiric truth/reality is?

The only actual way to determine if someone is telling a truth/fact is to verify it with corroborating evidence.

5) There is not & never will be a body of honest data that supports the false notion that torture is an effective means of deriving information.

As to the American Psychological Association getting 80 million plus dollars to ramp up torture techniques for the US government,

they have all the intellectual rigor of the Spanish Inquisition,

which is to say they are money parasitic, certified

intellectual trash.

What is the REAL use of torture as a tool?

It is the tool of police state terrorists,

used to instigate fear, horror & intimidation in populations they want to tyrannize.

Let me lay out a recent & illustrative example:

https://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/waterboarded-terrorist-fabricated-montana-recruiting-effort/article_8636a8fe-1096-5a81-b5f2-83e72b3a6cc5.html

When Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was tortured he said there was a terrorist plot to blow up gas stations in Montana.

The FBI spent millions determining it was a false claim, & Khalid Sheikh Mohammed subsequently admitted he lied.

They kept torturing him, until he confessed he was the mastermind behind 911.

Wow, do you believe that either?

But 'authorities' left that one out there for public consumption,

and paraded it in their show trial,

without even going to the bother of verifiying it.

Why?

Because it fit their agenda.

That made the public think there was closure on the 'official' narrative

AND torture was the self-justified 'key'.

Me?

Having looked at the addmittedly crude video of the Pentagon on 911 i have yet to find a 757 plane in it. That's a pretty large jetplane.

There is a fireball explosion, but there is no 757 that precipitates it.

but what do i know? How dare i use my own eyeballs!

Authorities become married to authority & most of them will do anything to maintain the grip on power.

The only defense you can guarantee is your own skepticism, whenever you hear something & then if possible critically examining it against your own experience, & other, reliable sources.

Call me the Duke of Doubt.

Conspiracies are proportionally more common than individual liars.

Conspiracy is a science fact.

It's recent science that came to my awareness in late 2017.

Groups have a higher propensity for lying for self benefit than individuals do.

https://phys.org/news/2017-09-liar-pants-groups-individuals.html

https://www.upi.com/Groups-are-more-likely-to-lie-than-individuals-new-study-shows/9961504718958/

With the same number of groups as individuals more of those groups will lie for self benefit.

What science hasn't yet explored if a group of groups compounds the totality of lying. Something to explore.

When someone suggests a conspiracy is in effect, maybe it is not a thing to laugh off with moronic glee,

well,

not if one claims to or wants to operate from a science basis.

Doesn't mean all proposed conspiracies are true.

But if the overall outward shape fits some proposed internal structure or aggregation of structures, it seems unwise to dismiss it,

without a solid preponderance of evidence to the contrary.

Lying is creating a construct that knowingly does not conform to organic, existential reality.

Science is about reporting on the construct of organic reality & possible altered configurations thereof with uncolored fidelity to the facts.

I will throw out some attempt at rational understaning of what might drive collective lying, aka 'conspiracy'.

In a group there would be an increased number of liars.

People are a social species are about persuasion & maleable intellect of 'rationalizing' a reason to do [or not do] something.

If there is some 'higher' purpose that can be conflated with deception it becomes more attractive to even those who cling strongly to ethical behavior.

Simple selfishness & artfully crafted sales jobs probably predominate the motivation.

Being one of the [elite] insiders has a lot of appeal.

Elimination & discrediting defectors can come into play.

Groups are a construct/structure.

As in physics a linked structure responds differently to its context.

Airfoils & Waterfoils are a couple of distinct examples.

It re-directs the flow of animation/attention. Opaques/shields transparency & comprehension.

The slicker & harder the linked surface of a group the more effective it is at the redirection property.

A group is, at least initially, about focusing on some specified interest.

Sometimes this is already the group itself & its members.

Over time this becomes the actual primary interest of most groups.

Prestige, money, power.

It is just the organic flow towards self-interest.

Holding firm to some relatively selfless mission is a real burden.

Lying creates a construct to direct flow of benefit to some desired target, very often the person(s) [singular or plural] engaging in it.

Science is about a clear representation/communication of reality.

In science there is no direct benefit except demonstration of clarity of mind.

Lies are as simple as they can be made, so people will grasp them easily & even find them attractive. Drama is also a selling point of many deceptions.

People get their emotions invested in many deceptions. The 'purity' of this, the 'evil' of that. 'How dare you ignore my emotional baggage! Burn the contradictor at the stake!'

Science must deal with complex, fragmentary details. It is rarely simple, although approximate round values/constructs drawn as abstractions can be derived, that are useful & reasonably effective in applying its utility.

Intellect demands minimal [if not actual zero] emotional entanglement. Dispassionism.

Society is a grouping, a social construct. It tends to become a binary paradigm. On this side is all the 'good' things and we are free to feel even irrationally good about those things/objectives. On this other side are all the 'bad' things and we can ride down upon them with rage & outrage.

An emotion driven imposition of harmony at the expense of many other considerations.

Driven often by self-deception, because we want to believe, .... & strongly.

Strong belief can make us feel clear & secure.

Dramatic narratives can unite a collective, at least for a time, but at what cost? Sanity, reality, analytic evaluation & sensible direction, perhaps?

I wish i had some great alternative recipe.

Good sound actual science would be a sane start,

but one must understand that the label of 'science' doesn't mean it is actually science.

Caveat Emptor, 'Buyer beware', when evading toxic doo-doo being pedaled as science.

We are manipulators. Life manipulates physics & chemistry. It's just primary.

I can only hope a good portion of us maintain independent self-stable structured frames of reference when viewing, understanding & acting in the world.

It would be nice to imagine some pure calm realm where things can be collectively contemplated, worked with as objectively as possible, but those are rare, and don't tend to last.

Legal disclaimer:

as if it matters.

Well i have to do some self correcting here.

about the whole dark matter thingy, which i would more accurately call the galactic centric effect [GCE]

While 'Dark Matter' by centuries of evidence is still nonsense,

if the interior of the stars were bending in a higher dimension [in the way a black does to space] then there would be more space on the inside of the Sun which would distribute the interia/angular-momentum over more space, meaning it would rotate more slowly.

[going to ignore for now the fact that in that dimensional/direction time slows down]

since the interior rotation of the Sun is faster than its surface one can only conclude that there is less rotational space than at the Sun's surface.

like a spinning ice skater goes faster when they reduce their radius the radius on the interior of the Sun is actually shorter than the exterior radius.

Pretty bizarre, no?

the Sun's interior would be 'flatter'/'shallower' [from all directions] than its exterior. [opposite of Dr. Who's tardis ;P]

i want to throw in a qualifier here,

i would feel more secure with a faster interior rotation if it has been interpolated from multiple data points & not calculated from a single instantaneous speed datapoint [as in calculus]. a single datapoint measure might mask other things going on instead.

in any event,

to determine if the interior of the Sun is smaller than its exterior extent would indicate, one would need to create or find some kind of ping wave and see if it got from one side of the Sun to the other through its center in a shorter time than would be expected.

What i will guess if the above is basically correct is that this deficit of space some how is trying to rebalance itself with the infinite space of a/the black hole. as if some fluid underlayment of space is trying to even itself out.

[odd thought: does that mean the interior of the Sun/stars is an actual vacuum? unlike empty space which is flat. or at least a vacuum relative to 3 dimensional space?]

the interior of the Sun & stars are pulling their exteriors towards the massive black holes at galactic centers.

would the infinite space of a black hole be likewise drawn towards [all of these] spatial deficits? don't know.

Would be interesting to see what goes on with stars in the vicinity of some mid-sized or small black hole. if there is some action/draw towards them that surpasses gravitational expectations alone.

a deficit of space does also fit well with fusion occuring, because fusion [in a very simple way] is the extraction of space from between two atomic nuclei.

pressure is also the lessening of space for some quantity of vector energy/energies. i wonder if solar interior pressure is any greater than expected? (Matterial/Volume)

again, while the macroscopic lensing effect of galaxies & galactic groups is [in all likelihood] actual spatial curvature, it comes cummulatively from the presure exerted by the interiors of the stars towards 'local' blackholes, not mis-hypothesized 'dark matter'.

[hoping i might be among the first to come up with this idea. ego? me? hrrumph. what a ridiculosityamentism that would be! remember you read it here first, maybe. It is certainly a weird idea to think about.]

droning on,

several researchers have found an annual cycle variation of radioactive decay. i am pretty sure this is a single eccentricity & not a dual eccentricity that might only reflect the elliptic shape of the Earth's orbit of the Sun.

My guess it reflects the alignment/configuration of the Earth, Sun & Sagittarius A [galactic center] for a single annual eccentricity.

clearly this slight variation has to be due to astronomical positioning in either case.

That tells me there is a lack of understanding about varying space characteristics & its effect on atomic nuclei.

People who claim to be scientists are like the rest of us, we all want some anchor of absolute certainty & simplicity, a kind of religious replacement, but actual science requires that we float in free-fall surrounded by noise & confusion & try to piece things together to our best abilities from there. We are always sketching what input comes to us.

the presumtion of absolute certainty given only a local temporal & spatial parallax begs hubris.

i on the other hand NEVER beg hubris! ;D

the presumption of a closed system without supplying evidence is unscientific. [the tax collecter of Louis the 14th actually supplied data, indicating a closed system in terms of matter.]

While i think E=MC^2 is approximately correct, i have a hard time believing in an absolutely closed system.

While the general continuity of the universe indicates incredible efficiency, i doubt it is absolute.

The only time one can conclude with absolute certainty, is when all the data is in, which will only be at the end of time, which may never occur, or never occur absolutely.

Science is always operating on partial data, & at most a couple of centuries against a good guess of at least tens of billions of years, is wow, not much to go on.

Anyone noticed that a lot of GMOs are targeted at short life cycle organisms?

What fundamental theory of life does this work in contradiction to?

Starts with an 'E'...

rhymes with 'revolution'...

still stumped?

i guess the geneticists doing GMOs against rapid reproduction species cant' figure it out either. They're too blinded by greed & egotism.

So the 'science community' that gets up in arms when anyone tries to deny evolution is in fact itself acting in denial of evolution & cheering on that same denial of evolution.

What a pack of money sucking, arrogant, hypocritical idiots.

These are the carerrist, academic morons claiming to be doing science.

They haven't proven intelligent design,

what they have proved by their actions is

UN-intelligent design.

Because fighting against evolution is very unintelligent.

In a word, stupid.

If you created GMOs that contended with drought or hydration conditions,

salt tollerance,

light or heat conditions,

soil conditions,

or various atmospheric mixes,

that could actually make sense,

because those things are not going to do a genetic end-run around engineered adaptations.

Growing insecticide poison directly inside of food to kill short life cycle organisms

quits working in a few short years.

The species genepool adapts.

What doesn't adapt to eating pesticide?

Relatively long lived human beings & livestock that live several times longer than these pest species.

So they have changed the fundamental DNA of an agricultural species for a benefit that at best lasts a few years & puts the end consumer at risk.

And then they have the nerve, the audacity to 'BLAME farmers for evolution'.

WTF?!

"Oh the farmer didn't do this..."

"The farmer didn't do that..."

and allowed evolution to happen...???

Will the religious right be villifying farmers for causing evolution?

The science pretender screwballs sure are.

What these morons didn't do is some logical thinking about what they were creating,

because they forgot, likely willfully, a hallmark of modern biological science, namely evolution.

Stunningly arrogant.

Frighteningly blind.

Thoughtless, reckless.

I guess greed & hubris is what you find with the vast majority of people who claim to be 'scientists'

These people are dangerous. Really, really dangerous when they entangle themsleves in & with positions of 'authority' & the money of profiteers.

The label 'science' gets slapped all around the place.

I will relate what has most sharply broken my naive faith in that which gets publicly labeled as 'science'

"Zika causes Microcephally" @@

What a trainwreck.

The zika virus has been known about since 1947 & in all that time until 2015 no one ever associated it with microcephally.

Subsequent to 2016, with millions of cases of zika around the globe there is no forecasted epidemic of microcephally either.

So what gives?

In 2014 NE Brazil started directly spraying the water supply with pyriproxyfen, a larvacide to kill mosquito larvi.

In late 2015 healthcare workers started noticing an unusual rise in babies with microcephally [ONLY] in NE Brazil.

Suddenly those 'genius' 'brilliant' people of 2016 declared that zika caused microcephally, unlike those 'generations of blundering fools' prior to them who had never noticed this glaring, blinding 'fact'.

I guess that short lived genius spell of humanity has already faded, because no one else on the planet for years of zika outbreaks has noticed any zika caused microcephally.

The US congress, the CDC & the WHO all jumped on that 'genius', sensationalist bandwagon.

The US congress in its usual hysteria driven 'wisdom' allocated 1 Billion plus dollars to create a vaccine against the 'horrible' zika virus.

In Feb 2016 Brazil announced the stopping of spraying pyriproxyfen on the water supply.

Now that spike of microcephally is gone, while zika remains.

The holes in this assertion came when NECSI [New England Complex Systems Institute] tested 2,000 pregnant zika infected mothers in Columbia and found Zero cases of microcephally.

Then they tested 6,000 mothers and still Zero microcephally.

Then they tested 12,000 pregnant zika infected mothers in Columbia and not a single case of microcephally was found.

"Pyriproxyfen is an analogue for insect juvenile hormone which is cross reactive with retinoic acid, which is known to cause microcephaly."

http://necsi.edu/research/social/pandemics/pyriproxyfen

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160624150813.htm

That was a complete contradiction to zika causing microcephally.

If one actually drills down into the data that was gathered in the 'Proof' article published in the Lancet, what is the actual data?

[September 15, 2016 at sciencedaily.com]

Not the title 'claims', the ACTUAL data.

Of the microcephallic babies, 80% of the mothers had zika.

41% of the microcephallic babies did have zika & 59% did NOT have a zika infection.

[In non microcephallic babies the zika infection rate is 0%.]

Since the mother is the only likely infection for the baby to get zika, that means

in 20% of the cases of microcephallic babies neither the mother nor the baby had zika.

In 20% of the cases it was impossible for zika to have caused it.

If these people had drawn a Venn diagram they might have noticed 20% of the mother-microcephallic-baby pairs completely outside of zika causality consideration.

Whatever caused that 20% of cases in all likelihood caused all the cases of microcephally in NE Brazil [ONLY].

And it provably was NOT zika.

They failed to even consider the null hypothesis.

This points out one of the unacknowledged pitfalls of science.

The data category selection bias problem.

In the universe there is virtually an infinite number of categories of data one could collect.

We [including people labeled as 'scientists'] like to think we know what categories to collect for a given question/inquiry.

How, by magic?

random probability says almost everything measured against a topic of inquiry is going to be irrelevant.

We like to think experience or informed sources will clue us in,

but the fact is, until you actually measure data against a given inquiry you don't actually know its relevance or not.

Let's say one collects data on categories A, B & C.

What if instead categories D, E & F [or A, D & E; or C, F & K; etc.] would show far better, more relevant relationships with the topic of inquiry?

The bias problem is that one tends to try to explain causality on the topic in terms of A, B & C even when they turn out to not be a high fidelity fit or even contradictory.

One tries to hammer a square peg into a round hole, with obtuse, opaque verbage and statistical contrivances.

Clearly this is the case of the Lancet article, where they collected data on zika & they collected no data on pyriproxyfen or its breakdown chemicals.

If they had any logic, data analysis training they would have seen that large fractions of their data actually fell outside of zika as a causal explanation.

The ONE single thing they SHOULD have concluded, by exclusion, with their own dataset, was exactly the opposite of the article's title claimed.

Now imagine if the causal X-factor had lowered the zika infection rate to babies even moreso & all the mothers had of had zika?

One might have had 100% infection of microcephallic babies with zika and zika still would not be the actual cause, & yet it wouldn't have been as blindingly clear on the initial data alone.

And in biology there are SO many factors possible.

hydration/dehydration; [changing] temperature; acid/akali; pressure; genetics; epigenetics; microbes; viruses; environmental chemicals; minerals

The data bias problem is tough, probably without an easy answer except one works with one's best guesses until the data either seems interactive with a topic or independent [excluded from consideration]

Let me add another pitfall of science, assumption of simple causality.

Very often researchers finds a statistical association between A & B.

Then they PRESUME they know which is cause & which is effect.

Presumption isn't science, even if it is published in a title.

One has to find or contrive cases where A is initial & with very high fidelity an abscence of B is replaced with B.

The multiplicity of possibilities of finding a statistical association between A & B:

B could cause A. A could cause B. A & B could both be caused by C. A & B could be linked so B causes A AND A causes B.

The fact is that most actuall causality is poly-convergent.

"The spark ignites the fuel to cause the fire."

What about under different temperatures, would that still cause a fire?

How about pressure? How about in a atmosphere with less or NO oxygen? Could one get chemical ignition in some other non-oxygen mix? Does the fuel self ignite like high explosives?

how about in extreme humidities?

It is causal, ... well,

in certain specific conditions experienced on this particular planet's surface over some given timespan.

2 Hallmarks of science are,

1) It's rejection of hearsay

2) Either it is in the work itself or it's simply not science. The work of the data collection & some logicked explanation that fits ALL the good data.

Society is built on hearsay

Science rejects hearsay

Society's construct is anathema to science.

Hearsay is accepting words as fact, without a shred of evidence required

thinking in science must be rooted in facts, evidence, data and sound logic

Society accepts certification, positions of authority, prestige, glamour, the 'law' and 'labels' as a substitute instead;

What happens in the so-called 'science community'?

they read the title of a published article and espouse it like gospel without examining the data, defeating the whole idea of rejecting hearsay.

They fail to follow that science protocol.

Pretentious academic wivestails, not science

Just because garbage gets published in a 'peer reviewed' journal, doesn't make it science.

A claimed title that doesn't match the actual data isn't science isn't a science based claim.

A sheepskin on the wall isn't science & doesn't do the work that is possibly missing from the project, publication.

A sheepskin shouldn't mask intentional fraud for monetary, ego or career purposes, yet often it does.

And publication exists in a 'publish or perish' urination constest environment.

Science is in the work only & always and a label doesn't cut it, no matter the PHD 'credentials' or the prestige of the journal or institution.

The only way one should ever vouch for something is when you have examined the data. Although anyone listening to one's voucher is still getting hersay, just to be clear.

The reason it bothers me so much is that i think actual science is the best basis of understanding & best direction of action.

Science is about fidelity to reality.

it is not an income stream, a career path, a source of prestige.

Caveat Emptor, Buyer Beware, whenever something is labeled 'science' by anyone, anything.

And that wariness must be doubled or tripled whenever it relates to profiteering areas such as, 'medical science', 'latest technology', 'government funded', etc.

The

XL Keystone pipeline

is being built to RAISE gas prices.

Paraphrasing Trans Canada's response to Canadian regulators when asked why they are building it:

"to make 4 billion dollars more per year."

[to put in their tax dodging Swiss bank accounts]

[the facts are laid out in the August 19 2011 issue of National Geographic]

Currently Wyoming & Colorado are benefitting from a 4 billion dollar annual discount.

It's to make sure CO & WY buy their oil first because they are the ONLY possible customers for it,

because the current pipeline terminates there.

Once built it will NOT lower gas prices anywhere in the US, but will raise them [about 20 to 25 cents a gallon] in CO & WY,

and it is not enough oil to lower the global price of oil.

$4 billion is 100,000 $40,000.00 a year jobs that will be lost to the CO & WY economies, for a net 20 long term jobs monitoring that leaky pipeline.

Remember this is not sweet crude, this is gritty, sandy tar sands oil, that will be scraping & shredding the insides of that pipeline over the Ogallala aquifer.

Trans Canada doesn't have a great track record with their pipeline maintainence as it is.

Anything transported across or produced in CO & WY will have increased prices.

It is a 4 billion dollar hammer blow to CO & WY.

Why haven't you heard the relevant facts on this issue?

Because you mistake the news-like substitute on MSNBC, FOX, CNN, etc. for actual, relevant news.

Corporate network 'news' IS fake news.

Maybe they can tell you about the mythical city of Marjah, Afghanistan that doesn't actually exist, again.

You might notice the wikipedia entry for the "city of Marjah" shows a picture of a poppy field, not an urban corridore or air shot of an actual city.

Talk about fake news, that was a leading story on every corporate network, where if they had even have googled a map to find it they would have realized it was nonsense.

Porter Goss on Democracy Now said, "What city of Marjah?!" He had been to Afghanistan & knew it was a lie from the Baghram Marine base.

PSEUDO 'FREE TRADE' AGREEMENTS

are actually

CORPORATE SLAVERY contracts.

You know those things they keep claiming are free trade agreements?

They are actually about corporate tyranny & enslavement of citizens & nations to corporations.

In Chapter 11 of NAFTA & in the [thankfully] terminated TPP [Trans Pacific Partnership] & the TTIP

they have provisions to put every signing nation into slavery to corporations, and under the yoke of the nation its citizens, too.

It allows transnational, tax dodging corporations to sue the betraying governments for future, projected, IMAGINARY profits,

ALL IN SECRET TRIBUNALS.

Laws to ban lead in products, deathtraps on wheels, poisons labelled as 'medicine', etc. are opennings for corporations to profit from lawsuits,

SECRET LAWSUITS.

In other words each nation & all of its citizens are on the hook for corporate accounting departments fantasies of future profits.

The only time you are on the hook for someone else's one sided fantasies is when you are a slave,

a corporate slave.

So while the 14th amendment has outlawed slavery, these bogus 'free trade' agreements are sneaking it in the back door.

Constitution violating treason.

Why don't you know about this?

because complicity in corporate sedition & treason has to be done in the shadows where the cockroaches do their breeding.

These lawsuits are done in secret courts, run by the same treacherous corporate profiteers, not in a legitimate, publically accessible judicial system.

Transcanada was sueing the US for 15 billion dollars [under Chpt. 11 NAFTA] about not building the pipeline,

even though it would only cost 7.5 billion to build, because they are allowed to sue over imaginary future profits.

You can't even sue a government for actual damages, that takes away your house for a private development that never even gets built,

but they can sue over accounting pipe dreams.

Thank the US supreme court for that as well as making up other unconstitutional nonsense like "money is speech".

That doesn't even make sense,

money is just the volume dial, turned up to drown out 'freedom of speech' to meaninglessness.