Meaning of CDMSII null result
Jack Sarfatti
Actually, now I remember, Gary Bekkum is doing it. Ask him to put
together the list of all the URLS he has collected.
On May 8, 2004, at 9:55 AM, David M wrote:
I've got the books.
In my spare time in the coming weeks I'll scratch together a list from
Physics Today, Rev Mod Physics and this list.
Thanks
Dave
At 08:48 AM 5/8/04 -0700, you wrote:
I don't have time to do that. Someone should. April 2003 Physics Today,
recent Rev Mod Phys - stuff on e-print archive.
No one but me understands nature of dark matter as yet.
If the recent CDMSII data holds up, showing false positives in the
Italian data, that is a triumph for my idea that DM is w = -1 ZPF with
positive pressure and that dark energy is the same but with negative
pressure and that together they are 96% of large-scale stuff of
universe. This number can change as scale decreases. We have a "CWT
power spectrum" instead of usual FT power spectrum.
The WMAP, Type 1a data is only for scales > 10^2 megaparsecs.
So lots of
speculative papers grasping at straws.
Start with my two books from 2002 on Amazon.
On May 7, 2004, at 10:17 PM, David wrote:
> Jack,
>
> The essense of genius is in knowing what to ignore. I wish I had time
> to go through the 900 plus messages in this groups.
>
> Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Universes Accelerating (DM/DE/UA)
> certainly have changed how we look at the universe, and how we will
> look at physics in the future.
>
> Could you provide a Required Reading and/or Recommended Reading list
> of books, articles and pdfs?
>
> Ok, so the list will probably require a Bachelors in Physics along
> with Tensor analysis and Engineering Mathematics.
>
> You have already recommended Cosmological Physics by Peacock. And even
> after 30 years, GRAVITATION by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler is a
> standard.
>
> But the DM/DE/UA discovery of 1999 seems to have changed alot. Perhaps
> confining the bibliography to 1999 to present might be helpful.
>
> Put another way, what would the syllabus for Sarfatti Physics look
> like?
>
> Thanks
>
