Senior Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-4 Poor

About Q-reeus

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
  1. Vector theory of Gravity

    As follow-on from my last post here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117068-vector-theory-of-gravity/?do=findComment&comment=1081814 The mentioned then still forthcoming reply by Svidzinsky & Hilborn has now been posted at arXiv.org: Comment on 'Tests of general relativity with GW170817' https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.02604
  2. Saying everything and therefore saying nothing. And even that only ventured after a definitive clarification from me that should have been too plain to misconstrue. Vintage effort.
  3. You still don't get it. My main point there is not about whether J. S. Farnes's hypothesized 'solution' to DE/DM problem(s) is speculative and unproven or not. Of course it's speculative and unproven. The real point is his foundational position re dynamical properties of 'negative mass' follow Hermann Bondi's 1957 formulation. And that formulation is fundamentally flawed. When corrected, there is absolutely no possibility of 'negative mass' whose inertial mass (regardless of passive/active gravitational mass sign) is also negative. Not just speculative/unproven/hypothetical - utterly impossible. Since no-one with basic physics knowledge has had the balls to constructively and critically comment, here at last I provide a link to that article obliquely mentioned in the now oft linked to post: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Negative-Masses%2C-Even-If-Isolated%2C-Imply-Hence-a-TonniUniversit/aa73b5b07e669a1dad279bf96f22484ba581296f Click on 'View Paper' tab for freely downloadable pdf doc. It probably has very few citations to it. For those most impressed by such, as opposed to quality of content, feel free to dismiss out of hand. I go by quality of content.
  4. My actual position is crystal clear. Again: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117292-quantum-fluctuation-origin-and-anti-gravity-voids-expansion-theory-of-the-universe/?do=findComment&comment=1084150 That you cannot understand it and further choose as usual to misrepresent, is as expected.
  5. Asserts the 110% for mainstream everything bulldog. At least here at ScienceForums.net, you're on a somewhat tight leash and aren't free to liberally pepper your real feelings towards me with f words. Have a nice day.
  6. That propensity for quote mining brings the recent fork here full circle in a way: The actual situation is far worse than Bonnor supposed. Deafening silence from anyone with physics knowledge, and 'interesting' penalizing, tells me all I need to know about the worth of further participation here at ScienceForums.net.
  7. Again - no it hasn't. Completely skew of the mark. Still hopeful someone with physics knowledge will respond as repeatedly asked. Nothing difficult involved. I made no 'stuff up' except in your mind. A general opinion with nothing specifically aimed at me needed no response. Making an issue out of matters lending themselves to artfully distorting and taking out of context an opponents position is not my idea of useful forum discourse.
  8. Your typically convoluted and skewed reply was addressed specifically to me. So how about correcting point 6 which reads: [6] The "pushing" you describe is really the gravitational attraction of matter towards more dense regions of matter and away from the less dense regions. Wrong. I never claimed any such thing, and in fact you offered faint praise for one in particular of my earlier posts refuting that notion. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT! The rest of your post there is not worth a dignified response. Everyone knows your militant 110% support for mainstream everything. And how you love to aggressively hound anyone not at that same 110% unqualified adoration level. PS: Another late edit of yours and the all important you word has been excised. Whatever - I'm looking for a knowledgeable physics/maths based reply to a specific claim. Not bluster.
  9. If it doesn't exist, then it is quite relevant to any argument by anyone with regards to any perceived properties of that doubtful quantity. "However the big difference, arguably the biggest difference, between anti-matter and negative matter is that negative matter doesn’t exist". I recall you as being a long time enthusiast for the Alcubierre Drive notion that iirc absolutely required 'exotic matter' aka 'negative mass' for it's hypothetical justification. Are you now saying negative mass for sure does not exist? That is, abandoning unconditionally all support for Alcubierre Drive and similar exotica? Dear StringJunky, hello. I note your title is Glorious Leader and rank is Genius. Given those nice attributes, may I assume that having ventured in here, you will now have no difficulty or reticence in offering a meaningful, specific response to my earlier post 'hinting' Bondi's position re 'negative mass' is unphysical? [Why the hell are my posts merged like this? Is there no easy fix?]
  10. To deny there are entrenched positions in mainstream science is your prerogative. To gain a feel for the relevant subtle issues I suggest a read through e.g.: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/ It's clearly - and intentionally briefly - laid out back in my earlier post: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117292-quantum-fluctuation-anti-gravity-anti-matter-void-expansion/?do=findComment&comment=1084150 Well as stated earlier, I prefer feedback from folks here with actual physics/maths background. But if you want to give it a stab - try and keep it actually relevant to my argument. Your late edit addition above does not address my argument against Hermann Bondi's 'standard' negative mass basic propositions.
  11. I cut & pasted largely from what was posted at another forum - which IS overwhelmingly a PC-centric platform despite it's pretending-to-be-otherwise forum name. So I forgot to excise the PC bit here. As for your comment re mainstream - well my earlier post here is meant to highlight imo one example where entrenched mainstream thinking has been plain wrong. If you have a specific physics/maths based response arguing otherwise - let's have it! PS - I won't post a link, but this back-and-forth between sub-forums episode reminds me of a golden oldie Tommy Roe song 'Dizzy'. There on YouTube btw.
  12. Where to start..... I received NO email alert re responses to my last post that evidently was the trigger for this thread being moved from Speculations to A & C. The next posting linked to a redundant and inferior article to that which I had linked to. And made NO comment on my own poser. The next post which responded to mine basically butchered mine by placing a next to final passage to the front, and then failing to include my all-important quotes that left the rest quoted as almost meaningless. Seems no-one here with actual physics/maths training is prepared to risk a focused response to: 'What say you good PC/mainstream folks here - was he right or wrong?' As I wrote then, there is a newly discovered article backing my pov. But I expected a reasoned response from knowledgeable folks to just the intentionally brief argument already given. And btw, the original thread title during its Speculations sojourn: 'Quantum Fluctuation Origin and Anti-Gravity Voids Expansion Theory of the Univers' (yes an e was missing at the end - likely owing to title exceeding allowed length)
  13. I'm a little hesitant to bring this thread back to life, but...quite recently in another forum, the following was posted: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/dark-matter-energy-solution-theory-negative-mass-astronomy-astrophysics-a8668476.html Then another posted this arXiv link: https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.07962 On p2, 2nd para in that arXiv article there is the following: That single statement imo dooms the author's hypothesized DE/DM 'solution'. His accompanying scenarios in Fig.1 is (imo!) only correct wrt uppermost one. The other two follow Hermann Bondi's fundamentally wrong 1957 formulation of 'negative mass basic dynamical characteristics'. Thereafter adopted as mainstream position - with various dissenters however. In the 3rd para p2, it reads in part: Wrong, and wrong. To (hopefully) see why, realize that an inductor is properly the magnetic inertia analog of mass. The well known 'natural response' of an RL circuit is: I(t) = I_0(exp(-Rt/L)) For standard derivation and definition of terms, see e.g. Appendix here: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/electrical-engineering/ee-circuit-analysis-topic/ee-natural-and-forced-response/a/ee-rl-natural-response Substituting -L i.e. negative inductance for positive inductance L there is perfectly legitimate mathematically. Physically, the result should be obvious. As also the implication for supposed negative inertial mass. I knew this result for quite some years, but only just now found an article backing it up explicitly. In a somewhat long-winded but imo rigorous manner. (No I won't post a link to it, just yet anyway.) Now Hermann Bondi was a 'giant' in the GR community with a very impressive track record. Moreover, his general conclusions re 'negative mass' have been scrutinized by many other famous names within the GR community, and in general adopted as 'physically sound'. What say you good PC/mainstream folks here - was he right or wrong? PS: The author J. S. Farnes of 1st and 2nd linked articles above does NOT claim his DE/DM is anti-matter! The basic dynamical implications there have imo relevance here.
  14. I skimmed back through earlier posts just to check if there was a link to fairly recent large scale cosmic evolution simulations. Here's one hit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32qqEzBG9OI Indicates just how good the match between theory prediction and observation has become. No input assuming anti-gravity anywhere. Another one that goes into technical details I cannot follow but you get the idea it's very complex with lots of factors involved: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI12X2zczqI Again - the physics makes no use of anti-gravity to arrive at voids and webs structures actually observed. Recall too that growth is in part a consequence of an overall cosmic expansion - hence voids growing reflects that.
  15. OK thanks that sufficiently clarifies.