Reply to comment

To Candice H, Brown Elliott.
First I want to thank you for reading my paper and for taking the time to raise your concerns. I would like to answer them in the order you presented. The title is an accurate representation of the “measuring tool” I employed to identify Dark Matter. It is a particle, consisting of one microgram of mass, suspended within a cubical chamber 1 kilometer on a side (3281 ft or about 0.6 mile). Scientists often synthesize a “measuring tool” and use it to explain a theory letting future experiments validate or challenge their assumption. I took a different approach. Using documented data on the amounts of matter falling on earth collected by a respected astrophysicist (Ceplecha 1996), and employing physics and mathematics I created a demonstrated “measuring tool” identifying mass from the data.

My analysis as to the visibility of the particle on a unit basis is to show how small the target particle is in relation to the chamber. Pardon me for this next description, which I feel you totally comprehend but others will read this blog who may not understand the reality of minuscule matter forms. A common aspirin is 324 milligrams. If you look down at the circular form and imagine it as a pie, cut it into 360 pieces each a very thin 1-degree slice. In each slice are 900 one-microgram particles. One of these ‘dust like’ particles (smaller than a poppy seed) floats in a chamber one kilometer on a side.
Thank you for the reference you included in your critique. The dust motes the reference mentions are identified as “If it were in the form of 1 mm particles, each with the same albedo (reflecting power) as Earth's moon, each particle would be 8 km from its neighbors.” This sounds like a rough description of my “Particle Chamber Theory” except the reference concentrates on size instead of mass.

You indicate that stars “shouldn’t be visible!!! But, obviously they are visible, even to the naked eye”. Remember stars are suns and they self illuminate with massive amounts of energy. Dust particles are not luminous and only reflect a minute amount of incident light. It’s because of this lack of illumination that the term ‘Dark’ was associated with the concept of Dark Matter.

Finally I agree that dust is known but as my paper references “Dunne et al., 2003 "Dust has been swept under the cosmic carpet - for years astronomers have treated it as a nuisance because of the way it hides the light from the stars. But then we found that there is dust right at the edge of the Universe in the earliest stars and galaxies, and we realized that we were ignorant of even its basic origin. Now, with these supernova dust factories, we can explain how that dust was made."
My paper identifies dust as Dark Matter and your analysis helps bring this subject out to the light of day.
Thank you again Jim Collins SR