Q-reeus

1 hour ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

Yes, but I don't know how much is this 10^11 estimation reliable. Also, it might be the density figure within the magnetar's body (wikipedia is not clear about it). It is also very unlikely that our magnetar will be perfectly aligned to make optimal conditions for our measurements. That's why I opted for the more conservative 10^10 value.

Another obstacle, I think, is that the physical size of the field is way too small - several tens of kilometers in diamter. How much would an occultation from such a small object last - a fraction of a second? I guess it is too small to make measurement, but I actually don't know.

And even then best to consult a specialist astrophysicist who could guess well enough if the general environment would be clean enough for a magnetic field gravitationally induced deflection to be extracted. For instance the mass quadrupole moment of magnatar might well dominate as a first order correction to spherical mass approximation. And maybe geodetic effect too (just guessing here). It's the specialist's job to try and account for all such things but such headaches I happily leave to them.

54 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

I understand the method, great! In fact, it occurs to me that even one single light source, passing slowly through the magnetic field, can be used - its light should, if conditions are preferable, display larger wobbling amplitude as it approaches the magnetar's surface. This actually could provide some mass-energy distribution information.

Edit: I still think, however, that our instruments cannot do it - eight orders of magnitude, calculated by Swansont, seems as a too large obstacle.

But maximum magnetic field can be according to the Wiki article 'greater than 10^11 Tesla'. That bumps up the field energy density by more than two orders of magnitude.
But only over a relatively short time frame given field decay is in theory fairly rapid.

4 hours ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

Ok, I will interpret the answer from the Q+A site in favorable manner: magnetic field, by itself, should not affect light (but the answer, as I understand it, does not take in account light-bending due to mass-energy of the field). Although, the field strength of a magnetar is so high that I don't think any scientist would dare to guarantee that there won't be any unknown effect.

No, I don't care to bend light - I care to test the energy density formula for the magnetic field... I started to think about observational possibilities when I read on Wikipedia that energy density of magnetar's field can be thousand times that of lead.

You were quite right to question validity of that earlier quote-mined passage claiming a magnetic field has *no* effect on a light trajectory. In GR any source of stress-energy-momentum density is a source of gravitation. And a magnetic field is at least a source of energy density and stress (Maxwell stresses). So it for sure will contribute to bending of a light trajectory. At 'normal' terrestrially available magnetic energy densities, the effect is minuscule. What that quote-mined passage was evidently implying was there is no appreciable *electromagnetic* coupling between a magnetic field and EM radiation. Even there, at extremely high magnetic field energy densities, QED nonlinearities come into play and there is actually a non-zero coupling - 'vacuum birefringence' e.g. https://cds.cern.ch/record/357780/files/9806417.pdf

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

4 hours ago, beecee said:

Yes, certainly I get it, At last.  

To talk of the properties of negative mass as though its something concrete, after admitting it is hypothetical, is rather weird to say the least and what I have already commented on. 

Yes, I have already given a link that already claims that, so? hypothetical? Speculative? Impossible? methinks you are playing games.

Why would anyone actually see any need to discuss such hypothetical stuff with you, after your feelings and unsupported claims re GR are well known.

I've seen many examples of what you claim as "quality of content" and most all is hypothetical and fictional and probably anti mainstream. And obviously the few citations also point to the paper's lack of substance and simply repeating what most already know. Your many opinions on science are mostly just that...opinions mixed in with some recognised factual positions of which you do have good knowledge of. It's your opinions not based on recognised mainstream positions that are in question and purely hypothetical at this time.

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.

24 minutes ago, beecee said:

The position is that it is hypothetical and speculative like many scientific papers, and certainly not mainstream thinking.

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.

19 minutes ago, beecee said:

So you finally admit that it is all speculation and hypothetical? Strange way of doing it but hey! I'll take it! 

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.

28 minutes ago, beecee said:

With all due respect q-reeus, you obviously have an agenda, an anti GR stance and perhaps that clouds your thinking, and your unreasonable efforts in attempting to claim and show it in error or wanting. And of course, if  in your opinion, you are 100% certain of your claims, there is a far greater and more substantial way of getting it accepted...write up a professional paper, in a professional manner, for professional peer review. You will certainly get a 100% fair hearing, which you erroneously claim you are not getting here.

My quote mining are all with links and it can always be read in context. The point again though is this is all speculation and hypothetical scenarios. GR and the BB as first inferred by the OP poster are not in anyway invalidated or lessened in anyway and still stand as the accepted mainstream incumbent models. That is obvious and yet something you fail to accept.

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.

2 hours ago, beecee said:

The point has been made. The OP claims, and the additional hypotheticals are all still just that. As I have pointed out hundreds of scientific papers based on speculative hypothetical and unknown scenarios are published every day. And that is what science is all about. Some end up after the appropriate research as accepted incumbent and mainstream thinking and models...others remain and research continues...many though are simply lost in cyber space and never to be heard of again.

The problem of negative mass is hypothetical and unlikely. The properties of such unlikely and hypothetical negative mass, is it appears debatable, and obviously so "hairy fairy", fanciful and unlikely, as probably to belong to the third  bundle, and eventually be lost in cyber space.

Meanwhile the research into the mystery of DM and DE continues, with many papers and ideas, being considered actively. 

Some info from WIKI follows......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass

"Positive mass attracts both other positive masses and negative masses".

"Negative mass repels both other negative masses and positive masses".

For two positive masses, nothing changes and there is a gravitational pull on each other causing an attraction. Two negative masses would repel because of their negative inertial masses. For different signs however, there is a push that repels the positive mass from the negative mass, and a pull that attracts the negative mass towards the positive one at the same time.

Hence Bondi pointed out that two objects of equal and opposite mass would produce a constant acceleration of the system towards the positive-mass object,[6] an effect called "runaway motion" by Bonnor who disregarded its physical existence, stating:

"I regard the runaway (or self-accelerating) motion […] so preposterous that I prefer to rule it out by supposing that inertial mass is all positive or all negative."	”
— William B. Bonnor, in Negative mass in general relativity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass

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.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

...your so called request for expert comment has been given with my reputable link,...

Again - no it hasn't. Completely skew of the mark. Still hopeful someone with physics knowledge will respond as repeatedly asked. Nothing difficult involved.

Quote

He was correcting you on your stuff up....I'm sure you will have no difficulty in admitting that, since you can't refute his and my factual stance on that matter.

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.

17 minutes ago, beecee said:

Not sure how you can read any certainty in any reply of mine including your faulty recall. I'm not sure if the Alcubierre drive will ever be realized...I certainly hope so though.....I'm not sure if wormholes exist either, other then they are a prediction of GR, and whether it is positive or otherwise that some form of exotic matter will be needed to keep them open....all hypothetical at this time. Who knows, DM maybe the stuff to enable wormholes and the Alcubierre drive to be reality one day......But again, for the umpteenth time, at this time it is all speculative, and  hypothetical and that's that.

He was correcting you on your stuff up....I'm sure you will have no difficulty in admitting that, since you can't refute his and my factual stance on that matter.

Again, what meaningful response would you like? Something like if this exists, and that is possible, and we do this, therefor GR is invalidated? Need I mention again, that this is simply all hypothetical, and as of today and taking into account the OP and the late addition,  

[1] The article and paper in the OP is based on speculation.

[2] It does not in the slightest invalidate the BB.

[3] Anti matter voids do not exist for obvious reasons.

[4] Anti gravity is not a consequence of anti matter.

[5] The voids  are simply areas of less density

[6] The "pushing" described is really the gravitational attraction of matter towards more dense regions of matter and away from the less dense regions.

[7] The web formations are a result of gravity. 

[8] The universe [space] is dynamic and has been known since Hubble.

[9] Negative mass is unknown in reality.

That's the state of the nation at this time and is in line with physical law, knowledge, and observational data.

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.

32 minutes ago, beecee said:

I don't believe I am denying anything that isn't patently obvious. Science changes all the time, and any new challenger needs to "run the gauntlet" just as the incumbent model did. Because one's pet hypothetical has not yet seen the light of day so to speak, does not mean that the mainstream is entrenched...and because some theories that have gained in certainty over time are still the preferred model, also does not point to any entrenchment. Theories gain in certainty over time and as long as they are continually making successful predictions and aligning with new observations, they remain as is.

Yep, so? I don't see anything claiming 100% validation there. In fact as I have been saying, still plenty of doubt.

I believe everything so far I have posted is relevant, including 

https://www.askamathematician.com/2012/02/q-whats-the-difference-between-anti-matter-and-negative-matter/

"However the big difference, arguably the biggest difference, between anti-matter and negative matter is that negative matter doesn’t exist".

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?

22 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

You don't know what you don't know. The stuff that is mainstream has been rigorously and repeatedly tested... and even then, scientists keep half an eye open that it might still not be a full description of nature. To the idea that scientists are entrenched as a matter of faith couldn't be further from the truth. The truth is that the people who complain that the science community  is closed-minded don't have a real clue about what they are talking about. 

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?]

19 minutes ago, beecee said:

Mainstream thinking is not entrenched. Just because some personal idea is not readily accepted by others, does in no way mean mainstream is entrenched. It changes all the time, as hypotheticals are evidenced and researched and implemented within mainstream thinking, if found more valid then the incumbent model.

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/

19 minutes ago, beecee said:

But what example are you referring to, to cut to the chase? 

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

19 minutes ago, beecee said:

Whatever personal, my thinking type of reply you get from me will certainly not be maths based, but I will certainly supply a reputable link to support or otherwise, whatever it is you see the need to support.

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.

19 minutes ago, beecee said:

Let's try again.....

https://www.askamathematician.com/2012/02/q-whats-the-difference-between-anti-matter-and-negative-matter/

extract:

With a liberal peppering of exotic matter (often far more than the universe’s total stockpile of regular matter) you can really open up the flood gates of the weird.

However the big difference, arguably the biggest difference, between anti-matter and negative matter is that negative matter doesn’t exist.

While negative matter may not contravene GR, neither does wormholes, and if any sufficiently advanced civilisation were to use wormholes as a means of travel, they would essentially need some of this negative or exotic matter to facilitate traversing the wormhole.

Now I'm not siding one way or the other, [negative mass would be fantastic if it existed for potential distant galactic travel] but as I keep saying, its still highly speculative.

Your late edit addition above does not address my argument against Hermann Bondi's 'standard' negative mass basic propositions.

30 minutes ago, beecee said:

Perhaps the lack of comment from PC/Mainstream folk here is because at this time it is still just a POV, and the recent article does not add  or subtract from any supposed validity or otherwise and is just another pov on a still speculative idea.

And I think its worth mentioning that someone being mainstream, does not necessarily imply political correct....A POV is mainstream because the vast majority of scientists see that as the most likely, logical, and closer to what was/is observed. 

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.

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)

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:

Quote

However, throughout this paper I specifically only consider a negative mass that is consistent with general relativity, so that the weak equivalence principle always holds and negative mass matter always has identical inertial and gravitational mass.

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:

Quote

...However, if a force is exerted on a negative mass, the mass will move towards the applied force. Nevertheless, a negative mass at the surface of the Earth would fall downwards in a similar manner to a positive mass.

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.

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.

43 minutes ago, beecee said:

Yes really...And I didn't say it was your excellent itemized list that was common knowledge. the common knowledge is that anti matter and matter react similarly. Your itemized list was not really necessary in light of the other errors of judgment and claims in the OP and the thread in general. But yes, an excellent summary.  thanks for that.

OK thanks that sufficiently clarifies.

28 minutes ago, beecee said:

Pretty common knowledge I suggest...and I did make the comment and I'm sure Strange also inferred, that if all the matter we saw was anti matter, then we would be calling that anti matter, matter, and matter, anti matter....if you get my drift. In other words no noticable difference from normal matter, including obviously any inferences of anti gravity...

 

Really? Then if my itemized list was such 'common knowledge', why only I made the responsible effort to actually post it all here? No need to answer btw. It's all too obvious - obviously.

coffeesippin - you may have noticed I'm the only one to point out a basic physics reason why it's hugely unlikely anti-matter anti-gravitates. There is more. To itemize:

1: Consistent observations of deflection in magnetic fields shows that at least for charged anti-matter, matter and anti-matter inertial mass are equal. Equivalence Principle then requires equivalence of gravitational mass. Only Wheeler-Feynman notion of anti-particles being ordinary particles traveling backwards in time logiocally suggests anti-particles anti-gravitate. But since that violates EP as per above, few these days give the idea any credence (1: here already covered in earlier post).

2: When particle-anti-particle annihilation occurs e.g. electron-positron -> gamma ray pair, one doesn't have a net zero gravitational mass outcome. Which outcome should be the logical expectation if indeed the input is positive gravitational mass electron + negative gravitational mass positron. (There is also a conundrum for standard physics hidden in positron-electron annihilation btw, but I won't expand on that here). Point is, anti-gravitation of anti-particle idea fundamentally conflicts with the expectation of conserved net gravitational mass.

3: According to the vixra article you cited earlier: http://vixra.org/pdf/1001.0007v2.pdf
, anti-particle anti-gravitation has a very strange character. Anti-particles repel both ordinary particles AND other anti-particles. Which is equivalent to claiming negatively charged particles repel each other and attract positively charged particles (what actually occurs), but positively charged particles attract negatively charged AND other positively charged particles (which does NOT occur). Hence there is imo no logical consistency to what that author posits. It leads to bizarre runaway scenarios.

4: The standard picture requires BSM physics to cope with the observed ~ 1 to 10^10 ratio between matter particle and photon numbers. Which outcome implies a slight asymmetry between particle and anti-particle annihilation in the very early universe. As posited by voids = anti-matter regions scenario, there is actually a perfect net balance between matter and anti-matter in current universe. But there simply was no chance for gravity to appreciably separate matter from anti-matter in the early hot BB. Either total annihilation to radiation occurred if there was no BSM annihilation asymmetry, or you have the standard picture of an entirely matter over anti-matter dominated matter content.

It's ok to hypothesize a radically new model, but also important to dispassionately check for consistency with known physical principles and their implications.

6 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

If you don't know where the anti-gravity anti-matter Voids are you did not reach much that I presented.  An anti-gravity Void is providing significant propulsion for our local group of galaxies.  Anti gravity arises from anti-matter. That's contained in the information.  I'm totally surprised you hadn't heard of them.  GR is in question all over the planet.  But I WON'T get into that because I'll be accused of hijacking my own thread and suspended or banned.  I'm onto you BeeCee.    I'm actually considering reporting you for your accusation against Jordan .. that's slander, in print its libel.  However .. I'll just as you to abstain further criminal accusation when discussing with me.   You could clear the air and enhance your reputation by apologizing for that one.  

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/02/120215-dark-energy-antimatter-physics-alternate-space-science/

coffeesippin - there is a very good argument why anti-matter should have the same gravitational sign as ordinary matter.
In every anti-matter particle detection so far observed, stretching back many decades, it's always the case deflection in a magnetic field is exactly opposite to the corresponding ordinary matter particle. This immediately means the inertial mass of both particle and anti-particle must be identical in magnitude and sign.
The Equivalence Principle then requires the gravitational masses to likewise be identical.

So if anti-gravity anti-particles were true, that fundamentally violates the Equivalence Principle. It's why afaik a main reason the Wheeler-Feynman notion of anti-particles being ordinary particles traveling back in time, was abandoned. Because that idea does naturally imply anti-gravitation of anti-particles.

4 hours ago, beecee said:

...Anti matter has never yet really been observed although it was probably created in the first few microseconds of the universe, where it annihilated  with normal matter...Although there is still some unknown quantity apparently with why there was a slight excess of normal matter. see..... https://cms.cern/physics/what-and-where-antimatter

????? Just read the two paras under 'The evidence spoke for itself' in that very article you linked to!! First observed in 1932 (positrons), and whole anti-hydrogen atoms made back in 1995.

Now if you meant antimatter in an astronomical/cosmological setting, that should have been clearly stated. And you would still have been wrong:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.4620

What hasn't been identified is large scale structures i.e. voids comprised mostly or entirely of anti-matter as neutral atoms/molecules.

[Just saw your late edit at bottom admitting positrons have been created in lab. Also anti-hydrogen - as mentioned in the very article you cited.]

4 hours ago, beecee said:

Again as I said in my first reply, we have many papers written on hypothetical aspects of possible cosmological scenarios that have yet to be validated...This is one of them.

ps: GR also predicts worm holes, but as yet they have never been seen or evidenced, so still remain as a hypothetical aspect of GR.

The online evidence totally refutes that nonsensical claim...Check out the science forum for the many scientific articles and papers that I post. The trick is of course to know what is hypothetical and/or speculative, as opposed to articles and papers on scientific models, facts and theories. 

 

PS: Please note also that the article you linked to is from 2012, not that there is anything wrong with that. The obvious relevant fact is that if this was "validated" as you appear it to want to be, then we would have heard more up to date data as to its validity or otherwise. Yes it was an interesting article and where I get most of my new science stories from, although again the journalistic lean towards sensationalism in headlines needs to be watched.

 

Let me make a late addition, anti matter has been created in the Lab in the form of Positrons..

8 hours ago, beecee said:

...The facts are that contrary to your own position with regards to GR already being in serious doubt, at this time, the evidence says no it is not in any serious doubt, and again no other challenger can do as well withing that zone of applicability.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117068-vector-theory-of-gravity/?do=findComment&comment=1081799

You evidently have a conveniently short memory - or just straight-out sheer 'GR = Truth' prejudice.

8 hours ago, beecee said:

And you questioning that undoubted position is why precisely why this was moved to speculation. Does that clear it up for you?

No. There is no objective justification for booting this forked thread to Speculations. That many GR buffs and even famous authority figures, and also higher-ups here, cannot properly handle the straightforward and entirely unambiguous meaning of R_μν = 0 (in vacuo), is no reason to characterize my pointing out it's rigorously logical consequences as 'speculation'. But I well understand why forum 'realpolitik' has processed it here differently. There are conflicting positions on 'gravity does/does not gravitate' among GR authorities. Unfortunate fact.

8 hours ago, beecee said:

I can produce many reputable articles from reputable scientists disputing  the many positions and agendas of the usual anti GR brigade and their fruitless crusades.

As you see it - as one having zero technical expertise to pass objective judgement.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

This isnt about me q-reeus...this is about you contradicting the world in general....Serial posting??? It actually appears you just resent critical acclaim of your error ridden, anti GR stance. While GR remains on top of the ladder though, that will continue.

 

•  Again you fail to comment on.... "General Relativity is not the final theory of gravity, for there is no such thing. As General Relativity turns 100, we would do well to celebrate it with a healthy does of scientific scepticism. Long live General Relativity, and a big welcome to its eventual replacement, whether in our lifetime or not". and...."In reality, and if we are all  honest with ourselves, there can never really be any theory that one could call complete. But again, at this time GR is the best we have and has performed magnificently being head and shoulders above anything else".  

1. http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/gravitating_misconceptions.html

 

I could quote you from elsewhere as having stated on numerous occasions that GR is 'as perfect a theory as could ever be' (exact words may vary but that was your position).
Since then you have picked up on articles toning that down somewhat - like your bold text quote above. What exactly you are inferring re my position baffles me. Nothing there to really comment on. It's a safe statement re 'GR is not the last word' - but the hidden subtext to that is 'which will only be modified via a quantum gravity 'final theory'.

As for the 't Hooft article - stop being lazy. Reproduce here any passage(s) specifically bearing on whatever your unstated, notionally relevant point actually is.

5 hours ago, beecee said:

...You really need to consider in the final paragraph the highlighted, underlined sentence, which is all I have been trying to get you to understand, and may I say what the others on this forum have also tried to get you to understand, not to mention the myriads of reputable links I have given you, pointing to the error in your thinking. Perhaps you should understand that you need to get past any preconceived agenda that you may have?

Hope that helps.

Only to further demonstrate your confused thinking and erroneous claims. I could hope you would lay off continued serial posting here. But knowing you that is sadly unlikely.

10 hours ago, beecee said:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6395/1342

A precise extragalactic test of General Relativity:

Testing General Relativity on galaxy scales

Einstein's theory of gravity, General Relativity (GR), has been tested precisely within the Solar System. However, it has been difficult to test GR on the scale of an individual galaxy. Collett et al. exploited a nearby gravitational lens system, in which light from a distant galaxy (the source) is bent by a foreground galaxy (the lens). Mass distribution in the lens was compared with the curvature of space-time around the lens, independently determined from the distorted image of the source. The result supports GR and eliminates some alternative theories of gravity.

Science, this issue p. 1342

Abstract:

Einstein’s theory of gravity, General Relativity, has been precisely tested on Solar System scales, but the long-range nature of gravity is still poorly constrained. The nearby strong gravitational lens ESO 325-G004 provides a laboratory to probe the weak-field regime of gravity and measure the spatial curvature generated per unit mass, γ. By reconstructing the observed light profile of the lensed arcs and the observed spatially resolved stellar kinematics with a single self-consistent model, we conclude that γ = 0.97 ± 0.09 at 68% confidence. Our result is consistent with the prediction of 1 from General Relativity and provides a strong extragalactic constraint on the weak-field metric of gravity.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/06/21/einstein-wins-again-general-relativity-passes-its-first-extragalactic-test/#f92ef682f577

Einstein Wins Again! General Relativity Passes Its First Extragalactic Test:

extract:

For the first time, we've been able to perform a direct test of General Relativity outside of our Solar System and get solid, informative results. The ratio of the Newtonian potential to the curvature potential, which relativity demands be equal to one but where alternatives differ, confirms what General Relativity predicts. Large deviations from Einstein's gravity, therefore, cannot happen on scales smaller than a few thousand light years, or for masses the scale of an individual galaxy. If you want to explain the accelerated expansion of the Universe, you can't simply say you don't like dark energy and throw Einstein's gravity away. For the first time, if we want to modify Einstein's gravity on galactic-or-larger scales, we have an important constraint to reckon with.

 

I am a Ph.D. astrophysicist, author, and science communicator, who professes physics and astronomy at various colleges. I have won numerous awards for science writing since 2008 for my blog, Starts With A Bang, inclu...

 MORE

Astrophysicist and author Ethan Siegel is the founder and primary writer of Starts With A Bang! His books, Treknology and Beyond The Galaxy, are available wherever books are sold.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In reality, and if we are all  honest with ourselves, there can never really be any theory that one could call complete. But again, at this time GR is the best we have and has performed magnificently being head and shoulders above anything else.

When mining with the evident hope of finding a 'dagger' article(s) to 'kill' my arguments here, it pays to actually understand what said article(s) really covers.
Important clue in your own reproduced Abstract re ScienceMag article (non-paywall version: https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.08300):

Quote

Our result is consistent with the prediction of 1 from General Relativity and provides a strong extragalactic constraint on the weak-field metric of gravity.

WEAK FIELD. Immediately, the finding cannot be a threat to either of the two rival to GR theories mentioned earlier this thread. Both of which are known to reproduce all the weak-field 'confirmations' of GR. So what 'other theories' have been ruled out here? Well the Forbes article makes it pretty clear - MOND type theories meant to do away with dark matter. The authors, as typically done, forget to mention that leaves quite a few rival theories to GR intact, which all likewise pass this galactic lensing study findings.
Sorry - your dagger appears to be pointing inwards. Since you failed to pick up on the weak field implications. Had you done so, it would have been pointless posting the links and cut and paste selections. Back to mining the internet for more ammo.