Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cougar
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
In other words, everything we think we know defines less than one percent of the mass fraction of the universe! Can’t we do any better?
|
This is a scientific argument? |
Prospective. I don't think pouring dark stuff all over a model that isn't working is a scientific thing to do.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cougar
Except, how does this square with the observed slowing of atomic clocks and the extended lifetimes of high-speed subatomic particles?
|
Weakly...but not too bad, if everything else works, and it seems to. The best answer I have on the subatomic level is to point out that neutrons are more stable in an atomic nucleus, (as long as it is not too crowded). So increasing density or relative speed slows atomic clocks and other nuclear events by increasing the effective electron/proton mass.
The causal mechanism here is very iffy it implies atomic decay probabilities are a function of mass & kinetic energy (temperature and emf!!!), I quess it could argue GR relies upon a similar causality... If I were completely happy with this answer, Cougar, I would probably be as obnoxious as Lyndon :-? ...if I am not already.