! Copyright 2001 by Donald E. Simanek.>
News item, September 1995: Accumulating data of star distributions in space shows that galaxies are not distributed uniformly, but crowd together along walls and filaments, with huge voids in between. Some describe this as looking like a "froth" or "bubble" structureon a cosmically vast scale. The puzzle is to understand how this came about, from the infant universe to the lumpy patchwork we see now. Was the structure in place before stars and galaxies formed, or did early smaller irregularities in matter density have gravitational effects that caused formation of large structured irregularities? A computer model developed in 1983 shows that dark matter probably played an early role in shaping the galactic distribution we now observe.<! The news items are genuine.> This is yet another example of the futile efforts of astronomers to find dark matter, then crowing every time they have a new piece of data that seems to suggest its existence. They look at data that they aren't smart enough to understand, so they postulate a speculative cause. There's an old joke about theologians "Looking in a coal-bin on a dark night for a black cat that isn't there." Like theologians, the astronomers expect to find the cat if they keep looking, and already report catching glimpses of its tail, a hairball, or the twinkle of its eye. Perhaps they are looking in the wrong place for the wrong thing.
<! We come out swinging with a diatribe against astronomers to set the stage. Paint your potential critics as narrow-minded and imperceptive, incapable of recognizing the truth of the great insights that you are about to reveal.> Their imaginations are too limited. For example, they assume that gravity obeys an inverse square force law everywhere, including elsewhere. They should know better, for the inverse square law is already known to be only true within limits. For example, at r = 0, the inverse square law predicts that the gravitational force is infinite, which of course is an absurdity, cheerfully swept under the rug as unimportant. They justify the truth of the inverse square laws by saying that if they were not 1/r2 in form, energy would not be conserved. Well, that's only true if the area of a sphere is proportional to r2 everywhere in the universe and if the speed of propagation of gravitational and other fields is constant throughout the universe. And what if energy were not conserved everywhere, what then? What if there were regions of the universe where gravity was "soaked up" and concentrated irreversibly? And just because forces add vectorialy in the laboratory, who is to say they do so elsewhere in the universe? Has anyone gone far enough out into the universe to experimentally check on this?
<! Everywhere, including elsewhere? It's well known that 1/r^2 forces "blow up" at r=0, which was a problem for the classical physics of the electron which considered electrons to be point particles. However, gravitational forces are generally ignored when modeling atoms and molecules, which seldom raises any questions in the mind of undergraduates taking physics courses. The comment about vectors comes out of left field and doesn't connect with anything else in this essay. The last sentence echoes the argument of creationists that scientists can't know the early history of the universe because no observer was there to see it.> <! 2009, I notice that some cosmologists are now speculating that the gravitational law might depart from 1/r^2, and get weaker (or is it stronger?) than the Newtonian form would predict at very great distances. It's so hard to write satire on cutting edge scientists when theorists' actual speculations are indistinguishable from it.> What this new sky survey actually shows is evidence that all of space is filled with a vast universal structure of nearly invisible gravity-sponge-strings (GSS) that "soak up" gravity, concentrating the intensity of gravitational fields into a lattice-like ribbon structure that binds and constrains the expansion of the universe. The only reason this was not discovered earlier is that no such GSS pass close to our Galaxy. Evidence from sky surveys clearly show that galaxies are not uniformly distributed but are crowded into a structure that is something like interconnected filaments. Some have described it as "like a foam of bubbles". This is easily explained as due to the holes in this vast sponge structure of GSS causing non-uniform distribution of galaxies, grouping them preferentially into the more stable regions of the GSS. Further research should reveal that dark matter is a myth, it being merely an inference from datadata that actually results from large-scale universal gravity variations of space itself (LSUGVSI). Until someone goes out and brings back a bottle of this dark matter for laboratory analysis, the "dark matter" idea should be treated as just a theory.
<! Soaking up gravity is definitely an innovative idea. It's about as plausible as a gravity shield. Both would run into difficulties with Newton's third law, but, what the heck, throw out that law, too. Suggest that this has something to do with string theory, but don't develop that idea. And if dark matter is "only a theory", then this paper, titled "A New Theory of Dark Matter" is in the same category.> It may well be that the GSS is nothing more than a structured-lattice anamorphic congealment (SLAC) of the luminiferous aether. But further research needs to be done to confirm that, and it should be treated only as speculative at this time.
<! Throw in some meaningless gobbledygook to make this sound like serious science. Then modestly admit that there's no evidence for this idea. Besides, isn't "furthur research" always a good idea?> The GSS theory neatly accounts for other puzzling phenomena also. Refraction and chromatic aberration of the GSS is the true cause of the cosmological red-shift, previously thought to be due to the expansion of the universe. Curvature of space is a result of this huge GSS sponge-structure warping the geometry of space due to the gravity it has soaked up.
<! Now our theory seems capable of explaning other things as well. It's on its way to becoming a "theory of everything".> Lest you think this is merely pure speculation, let me inform you that the full theory supporting these notions has been worked out by several theorists working independently and sometimes antagonistically. A computer model has also been written, using quantum electrodynamic relativistic metaphysical field theory (QERMFT), expressed using the powerful method of ChevyChase Polynomials in the Schwarzengruber approximation. The results neatly confirm the initial assumptions of the theory to perfect precision. So there!
<! There must be something to it if even independent antagonists come up with the same theory. Computer simulations are only as good as the data and assumptions fed into them. You can computer-model anything, even things that are impossible in nature. It looks a lot more convincing on a computer screen. Chebychev polynomials are useful in physics. No one has yet found a use for ChevyChase polynomials. "Chevy Chase" is a town in Maryland. It's always nice when experimental results confirm initial assumptions EXACTLY.> Could it be that astronomers engaged in dark matter research are ignoring the simpler GSS model in order to justify continued funding for their futile researches? Is this a vast silent conspiracy to squander tax dollars to sustain a creaky and outdated paradigm? We proponents of the GSS model say it's time to shift paradigms. If you think the GSS idea is daft, I can only say "Well, they laughed at Galileo, didn't they?" So laugh at this shifty paradigm if you will.
<! Aren't greed and ego the basis of all evil? Conspiracies, too. Appeal to those who think science wastes tax dollars. Close with the old "They persecuted Galileo" ploy. Actually, I don't know of any evidence that people laughed at Galileo for his ideas. The inquisition had no sense of humor. > This essay was intended as satire, but if it should turn out to be true, I claim priority.
<! This satire has been the least influential thing I've written. No one has told me they like it, hate it, agree with it, or disagree with it. I expected somemone might complain to me that he had these ideas first. >
Return to the top of this document.