coffeesippin

Quantum Fluctuation Origin and Anti-Gravity Voids Expansion Theory of the Universe

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

I have never seen them described as empty space. Areas of lower density and without the large scale structures such as galaxies and filaments. But only very poor quality journalism would report them as being empty.

You have been given multiple reasons, by various people, why it is highly unlikely there is antimatter in the voids and why it is even more unlikely that antimatter has negative mass.

Did you miss the fact that it says "pushes" in quotes? That is important.

Would consider the fact that the Moon raises tides on the opposite side of the Earth by "pushing" the water to be evidence of the Moon being made of antimatter? Because that is pretty much your argument.

"I have never seen them described as empty space." 

              Descriptions of Voids have changed, I'm 71 years old and have been reading about astronomy for over 60 years.  However, thank you for the prompt to which I found:  "Cosmic voids are vast spaces between filaments (the largest-scale structures in the universe), which contain very few or no galaxies. ... Voids located in high-density environments are smaller than voids situated in low-density spaces of the universe."  Wikipedia.  To me this is another evidence and/or speculation that the voids are smaller in high density areas BECAUSE they are pushing from within against the density.  Voids in low density areas can grow larger because they don't have as much resistance to whatever is pushing from within.  

 

"You have been given multiple reasons, by various people, why it is highly unlikely there is antimatter in the voids and why it is even more unlikely that antimatter has negative mass."

        Your words "highly unlikely" tell that the answer is not in.

 

"Did you miss the fact that it says "pushes" in quotes? That is important."

            That's what I say too .. pushing against the filaments from within the Void .. a neutral shell (there are neutral points in electrodynamics, right?) insulating between the matter and anti-matter.  https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/35/009/35009649.pdf  All I know about electrodynamic neutrality is from neutral wires in circuits and a brief glance at the google result which mentioned three levels of neutrality in that paper.

 

"Would consider the fact that the Moon raises tides on the opposite side of the Earth by "pushing" the water to be evidence of the Moon being made of antimatter? Because that is pretty much your argument."

           That's not my argument.  The moon is not anti-matter.  I don't mean to be brief, or curt, I don't mean to ignore, but I do have to use your own words,  it is"... highly unlikely there is antimatter in the voids ..." as admission that there is room for new evidence to reveal itself or be revealed, on both sides of the discussion.  I hope that allowance will keep the discussion alive, and not tossed, because if the voids ARE responsible for Expansion there are, as you firmly know, enormously important changes to our understanding of cosmology coming.  Why not be in a POTENTIAL forefront, rather than regretting the opportunity years from now?  The forum has nothing to lose, the topic is Speculation, so no one can say mods were slack in allowing it.  

 

 

               

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Your words "highly unlikely" tell that the answer is not in.

Of course not. This is science.

However, there are good arguments against and zero for. So, you know, balance of probabilities.

9 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

That's what I say too .. pushing against the filaments from within the Void .. a neutral shell (there are neutral points in electrodynamics, right?) insulating between the matter and anti-matter.

Totally missed the point. The reason "pushes" is in quotes is because it is not really pushing. These are called "scare quotes" and are used to indicate a word or phrase is being used to mean something other than the usual meaning. In other words: nothing is pushing.

A "neutral shell" would be even less effective at shielding matter and antimatter. Oe of the challenges of the CERN ALPHA project s finding ways to contain anti-matter long enough to measure its properties. We can contain anti-protons or anti-electrons because they have electric charge. Anti-matter atoms are neutral so, even when kept really cold, they will eventually hit the sides f the vessel and be annihilated.

You are invoking some sort of magic material that interacts with neither matter or anti-matter and is either solid enough to keep them apart of uses some sort of magic force to keep them apart.

9 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

 That's not my argument.  The moon is not anti-matter. 

Then how does it "push" the water on the far side of the Earth?

(And, yes, it is exactly your argument.)

9 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

but I do have to use your own words,  it is"... highly unlikely there is antimatter in the voids ..." as admission that there is room for new evidence to reveal itself or be revealed, on both sides of the discussion.

Of course there is that possibility. And it would be very exciting because it would require masses of new physics to explain how it could be there and be undetected.

Never going to happen though ...

9 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Why not be in a POTENTIAL forefront, rather than regretting the opportunity years from now? 

I am not going to jump on a runaway train heading for a cliff edge just because it might take us on a magic journey.

9 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

The forum has nothing to lose, the topic is Speculation, so no one can say mods were slack in allowing it.  

It is allowed. We are discussing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Strange said:

We can contain anti-protons or anti-electrons because they have electric charge. Anti-matter atoms are neutral so, even when kept really cold, they will eventually hit the sides f the vessel and be annihilated.

Can they make anti-matter ions and trap them?   (Actually - as I write I assume they have tried this already).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DrP said:

Can they make anti-matter ions and trap them?   (Actually - as I write I assume they have tried this already).

Well, because they are dealing with anti-hydrogen, the ions are just the protons and electrons! So yes, they do hold those in traps and then combine them to create the atoms. They then measure the properties (spectrum, mass, etc) of the atoms. So the measurements they are making require the (neutral) atoms.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Strange said:

Of course not. This is science.

However, there are good arguments against and zero for. So, you know, balance of probabilities.

Totally missed the point. The reason "pushes" is in quotes is because it is not really pushing. These are called "scare quotes" and are used to indicate a word or phrase is being used to mean something other than the usual meaning. In other words: nothing is pushing.

A "neutral shell" would be even less effective at shielding matter and antimatter. Oe of the challenges of the CERN ALPHA project s finding ways to contain anti-matter long enough to measure its properties. We can contain anti-protons or anti-electrons because they have electric charge. Anti-matter atoms are neutral so, even when kept really cold, they will eventually hit the sides f the vessel and be annihilated.

You are invoking some sort of magic material that interacts with neither matter or anti-matter and is either solid enough to keep them apart of uses some sort of magic force to keep them apart.

Then how does it "push" the water on the far side of the Earth?

(And, yes, it is exactly your argument.)

Of course there is that possibility. And it would be very exciting because it would require masses of new physics to explain how it could be there and be undetected.

Never going to happen though ...

I am not going to jump on a runaway train heading for a cliff edge just because it might take us on a magic journey.

It is allowed. We are discussing it.

My observation of the map of the known universe is to me sufficient argument, disregarding anything else.  But I'm tired, I've been up when I should be sleeping because lying down aggravates my sinus head cold, but I need to sleep, the sun is rising here, I gotta go.  More later.  Thanks for you contributions, Strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

My observation of the map of the known universe is to me sufficient argument, disregarding anything else.  But I'm tired, I've been up when I should be sleeping because lying down aggravates my sinus head cold, but I need to sleep, the sun is rising here, I gotta go.  More later.  Thanks for you contributions, Strange.

Runaway train or starship headed into the great sparkly Unknown?  We have a long way to go .. but we won't get there if we don't fire up the boilers.

Material for the shell that doesn't interfere with matter or anti-matter?   Scoop up some Dark Matter?  Or some Light-Dark Matter?Maybe some grey matter!   (We need a Big Brained Smiley Face!)

New pyshics?    How does that compare to the new math Jordan devised so QM could be established?   "Jordan devised a type of nonassociative algebras, now named Jordan algebras in his honor, in an attempt to create an algebra of observables for quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. Today, von Neumann algebras are also employed for this purpose. Jordan algebras have since been applied in projective geometry, number theory, complex analysis, optimization, and many other fields of pure and applied mathematics, and continue to be used in studying the mathematical and conceptual underpinnings of quantum theory."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

New pyshics?    How does that compare to the new math Jordan devised so QM could be established? 

New physics requires evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Strange said:

New physics requires evidence.

The big difference between you and me in this is that I saw the evidence right before my eyes, like the sailors looking at the approaching ship knowing the surface of the ocean was curved without having to shoot out a lazer.  So I believe in the best sense of that word that if I and others are searching we WILL find more evidence.   I have a motivation to search, and that's what you may be missing.   But I think if we are interested in science it's because of a deep shared curiosity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

The big difference between you and me in this is that I saw the evidence right before my eyes, like the sailors looking at the approaching ship knowing the surface of the ocean was curved without having to shoot out a lazer. 

You mistake looking at pictures with scientific evidence. Where is your mathematical model? Where is the data? where is the analysis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

I think I just had to reaffirm my 'ignore" of BeeCee on this thread, but I've been switching threads, so perhaps it was another thread in which his repetition of what I consider worn out argument and insults were major reasons for my not too difficult choice of putting him on ignore in the first place.  Maybe in  time the situation will change.

The point is my worn out arguments which you say you have on ignore anyway, are all the same arguments put by others here. You are really sounding quite "precious" in your continued complaints re my person, particularly when those complaints simply point out that you are wrong and are essentially the same arguments that you are wrong, that others are pointing out. 

some points you need to consider....

[1] Your 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 that you are preoccupied with are simply areas of less density

[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.

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

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

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

 

 

Really, you need to consider the irrationality in continuing your line of argument in this thread.

7 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

  I'll point out that your summary sentence has to consider one of your primary sentences .. "it's hugely unlikely anti-matter anti-gravitates."    I don't mean to nit pick or make small of important considerations, but known physical principles and their implications change over time.  A mere few years ago Voids were KNOWN as mere empty space.  Now they are KNOWN as dynamic constructs.  That's a huge change.

The universe is dynamic, so its not surprising that voids [space] are also possibly dynamic. The dynamic nature as you have continually been informed, depends on the density of the region. The universe has been known to be dynamic since Hubble.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Strange said:

You mistake looking at pictures with scientific evidence. Where is your mathematical model? Where is the data? where is the analysis?

The map was made by NASA .. they must have used math and data to make it.  I analyzed it with my brain that told me, 'hey, the Voids are like party balloons being blown up, and they're obviously restricting matter from entering them, while obviously pushing pushing the galaxies towards each other so that the galaxies are arranged as filaments.    

"The basic steps of the scientific method are: 1) make an observation that describes a problem, 2) create a hypothesis, 3) test the hypothesis, and 4) drawconclusions and refine the hypothesis."
"What is an example of a scientific observation?
Examples of ObservationObservation is the process of watching someone or something. Often, observation is an informal action, but it can also be formal and involve data collection." 
 
"Simple hypothesis is that one in which there exists relationship between two variables one is called independent variable or cause and other is dependent variable or effect. For example. Smoking leads to Cancer. The higher ratio of unemployment leads to crimes."
 
Testing the hypothesis .. I more closely examined the map and other maps .. they all appeared the same .. the voids all appeared to be doing the same thing with the same result.  Further tests?  I guess that's where your education comes in.   Remember, you're getting the Nobel, I'm just your guest.
 
(Although, you know, if you were to accept the prize, then say, 'Folks, Coffee here's the guy who gave me the idea, and did legwork on it, so I'm going to give him a certified cheque for half of my cheque.'  That would be real nice.  Thanks.

  

Voids described as empty space:  "Generally free of dust and debris, intergalactic space is very close to a total vacuum. The space between galaxy clusters, called the voids, is probably nearly empty. Some theories put the average density of the Universe as the equivalent of one hydrogen atom per cubic meter.Dec 14, 2010"  If that's the AVERAGE density, can we imagine or calculate the density of the Voids?  

Here's something interesting, though you probably know about it, and I think I heard about it before.  https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12546-biggest-void-in-space-is-1-billion-light-years-across/    It would be interesting to examine the structure of the groups and perhaps there might be single galaxies I doubt it though, around that void.

 

Actually, the billion year void proposes another evidence for my Speculation while my Speculation may solve the Cold Spot problem as to why it is there:

        "Because the CMB is leftover radiation from the big bang, some cosmologists have said that the cold spot is a problem for the theories of the early universe. But Rudnick               says that the void could have been created billions of years after the big bang."

Void GROWTH is a huge part of my Speculation.  Perhaps Rudnick should have (or could have) said, '.. the voids could have been created in the big bang, and grew more rapidly than the overall expansion.'     That seems to be the case with the Void which is pushing our group.     

Edited by coffeesippin
Getting my fair share .. separating merges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

The map was made by NASA .. they must have used math and data to make it.  I analyzed it with my brain that told me, 'hey, the Voids are like party balloons being blown up, and they're obviously restricting matter from entering them, while obviously pushing pushing the galaxies towards each other so that the galaxies are arranged as filaments.    

 

The map/s may have been made by NASA, but it is your lack of knowledge, and erroneous interpretation that is at best in total error.

Quote

"The basic steps of the scientific method are: 1) make an observation that describes a problem, 2) create a hypothesis, 3) test the hypothesis, and 4) drawconclusions and refine the hypothesis."

 

And your hypothesis fails at [3] and [4]

 
Quote

 

"What is an example of a scientific observation?
Examples of ObservationObservation is the process of watching someone or something. Often, observation is an informal action, but it can also be formal and involve data collection." 

 

 
 
We observe the web like nature of galaxies etc in the universe...We observe the expansion over large scales...we observe gravity being an attractive force or resulting from spacetime geometry, and arrive at a logical well supported theory admirably supported by the BB.
 
Quote

Testing the hypothesis .. I more closely examined the map and other maps .. they all appeared the same .. the voids all appeared to be doing the same thing with the same result.  Further tests?  I guess that's where your education comes in.   Remember, you're getting the Nobel, I'm just your guest

The voids are a result of continued expansion and gravity acting on the matter in drawing it together forming web like structures with increasing areas of less dense voids.

 
Quote

(Although, you know, if you were to accept the prize, then say, 'Folks, Coffee here's the guy who gave me the idea, and did legwork on it, so I'm going to give him a certified cheque for half of my cheque.'  That would be real nice.  Thanks.

 

False pretentious humour, does not detract from the fact that your ideas are impossible and the OP is speculative in nature.  

Quote

Voids described as empty space:  "Generally free of dust and debris, intergalactic space is very close to a total vacuum. The space between galaxy clusters, called the voids, is probably nearly empty. Some theories put the average density of the Universe as the equivalent of one hydrogen atom per cubic meter.Dec 14, 2010"  If that's the AVERAGE density, can we imagine or calculate the density of the Voids?  

Voids are less dense regions and are a result of expansion and gravity.

53 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Here's something interesting, though you probably know about it, and I think I heard about it before.  https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12546-biggest-void-in-space-is-1-billion-light-years-across/    It would be interesting to examine the structure of the groups and perhaps there might be single galaxies I doubt it though, around that void.

Nice link, but it does nothing to invalidate the BB, nor does it support any of your impossible, erroneous ideas.

from that same link....

 

"He thinks that the void is a confirmation that dark energy is at work in the universe. Normally, when the CMB photons pass through a gravitational well, created say, by a supercluster of galaxies, they first gain energy as they fall into the well, then lose energy as they climb out.

Problem poser

If the expansion of the universe is accelerating due to dark energy, then by the time the photons climb out, the supercluster has expanded, and its gravity is a little less strong. So the photons exit relatively easily and with more energy than they had when they entered the gravitational well.

But photons going through a void actually lose energy, ending up colder than if they had been flying through a series of superclusters. Rudnick thinks that the discovery of the void ties in neatly with the WMAP cold spot and the existence of dark energy. “What the community says remains to be seen,” he told New Scientist. “People will take shots at it now.”

Because the CMB is leftover radiation from the big bang, some cosmologists have said that the cold spot is a problem for the theories of the early universe. But Rudnick says that the void could have been created billions of years after the big bang. “We have taken the problem away from the very early universe and put the problem in the time of structure formation,” he says."

1 hour ago, coffeesippin said:

The map was made by NASA .. they must have used math and data to make it.  I analyzed it with my brain that told me, 'hey, the Voids are like party balloons being blown up, and they're obviously restricting matter from entering them, while obviously pushing pushing the galaxies towards each other so that the galaxies are arranged as filaments.    

Let's comment on the above again. Besides the fact that there is nothing wrong with the map, rather just your ignorance on the subject and misinterpretation/s, [1] The voids are simply less dense regions due to a combination of space expansion causing the less dense regions and gravity acting to pull galaxies together resulting in the web like structure surrounding these voids, [2] They are not "pushing" the galaxies apart per se, rather the galaxies and groups of galaxies are simply being attracted to heavier density regions of space, leaving the voids to become larger and less dense, in conjunction with the universal expansion. 

And that ironically is exactly what your own link says!

 

8 hours ago, Strange said:

Did you miss the fact that it says "pushes" in quotes? That is important.

Would consider the fact that the Moon raises tides on the opposite side of the Earth by "pushing" the water to be evidence of the Moon being made of antimatter? Because that is pretty much your argument.

Excellent point. As these simulations do not include antimatter with negative mass but do include dark matter and reproduce the sort of structures we see, says it all.

No, the void exists because of an absence of matter, not because some magic has pushed the matter away.

Nice argument.....[highlight by me] Worth adding that the web like structure of  galaxies that we see, are due to the DM acting on those galaxies and pulling them into the observed structure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Q-reeus
Herman -> Hermann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.disclose.tv/scientists-say-dark-matter-is-a-fluid-which-possesses-negative-gravity-354362?fbclid=IwAR2anTQXBSj2vkSFcMQUnDUeX0L0ERs7IavEM3DMBj9WNFJ1RP_2KJ3USPY

"Recent scientific developments have perhaps revealed a unifying of dark energy and dark matter into a single and distinct phenomenon. This phenomenon is theorized to be a fluid which has negative mass. This negative mass would move towards you if pushed. This new theory is representative of Einstein’s predictions made roughly one hundred years ago.

Current models of the universe reveal nothing regarding the physical nature of dark matter and dark energy. Dark matter and dark energy are only known in regard to the gravitational effects they have on other matter.

This new theory states that dark matter and dark energy contain negative gravity, which consists of repelling all other material around it."

Mucker Mark who may even be on this forum for all I know in another guise tells me I predicted this seven years ago.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

@coffeesippin As this has already been mentioned in this thread (and seems very relevant) I have merged your post into it.

Annoyingly, that deleted the original title. I have had to guess what it was.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, coffeesippin said:

This new theory states that dark matter and dark energy contain negative gravity, which consists of repelling all other material around it."

Mucker Mark who may even be on this forum for all I know in another guise tells me I predicted this seven years ago.  

As per your OP....technically, this isn't a theory....it is only an hypothesis, one that other scientists can think on, research on, and either validate or otherwise. There are literally hundreds of hypothetical scientific papers out every day....that's how science advances...some are lost forever in dusty archives and lost in cyber space[as probably this will be] others are  found to be evidenced and validated, like GR and the BB.....that's science, that's the scientific method.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:
!

Moderator Note

@coffeesippin As this has already been mentioned in this thread (and seems very relevant) I have merged your post into it.

Annoyingly, that deleted the original title. I have had to guess what it was.

 

Thank you Strange, and I apologize if I went overboard in any way earlier.  

  I have no objection to your move, and I had thought of doing what you did, but it was a slightly different scenario, though I haven't had time to look closely or investigate further, a friend sent it to me.  The new theory appears to suggest that Galaxies etc actually float in this stuff, which is what I suggested to Mark and all on NASA APOD forum (Mark says seven years ago)  .. of course I was declared a lunatic, and even Mark was incredulous that I could actually believe such a thing.  The new theory actually upsets my anti-gravity bubbles Voids, because if the anti gravity is outside the voids, what's now inside?   Aren't we in for a lot of new possibilities and surprises, with our new technologies?   

Scientists Say Dark Matter Is A Fluid Which Possesses Negative Gravity

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

As per your OP....technically, this isn't a theory....it is only an hypothesis, one that other scientists can think on, research on, and either validate or otherwise. There are literally hundreds of hypothetical scientific papers out every day....that's how science advances...some are lost forever in dusty archives and lost in cyber space[as probably this will be] others are  found to be evidenced and validated, like GR and the BB.....that's science, that's the scientific method.

BeeCee I hope we can go forward with a lack of animosity.  

I hadn't had time to look into the theory/hypothesis, as I saw it in my Facebook just before I posted it, and I posted it quickly because I didn't know how long I'd be on the forum. I thought it was very important to get out though.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

 Aren't we in for a lot of new possibilities and surprises, with our new technologies?   

Sure we are! So I suggest that we all keep up to date with the research from reputable science agencies and such. It will be extremely unlikely that any ground breaking discovery will be discovered on forums such as this.

Quote

BeeCee I hope we can go forward with a lack of animosity.

  There is no animosity on my part. I sleep very peacefully at night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, beecee said:

Sure we are! So I suggest that we all keep up to date with the research from reputable science agencies and such. It will be extremely unlikely that any ground breaking discovery will be discovered on forums such as this.

  There is no animosity on my part. I sleep very peacefully at night.

I think there was plenty of animosity in your "blatant liar."   

And if the negative gravity fluid is reality it was 'discovered' by me seven years ago while on a forum similar to this one, NASA APOD Asterix, where I was labelled lunatic for suggesting it.   

Unfortunately BeeCee, if you had been around in Aristarchus' day your definition of "reputable science agencies"  would have almost certainly put you among those who had him exiled for declaring the earth went around the sun.   I trust you have heard of Aristarchus?   

I don't understand why you aren't now on ignore, I thought it was done.  But it gives me the opportunity to apologize for saying it was you who posted my message on the board when it was Zapatos, who said he is a sock puppet of iNow.  No messages between you and I appear in my messages.  But with Zapatos statement I really can't know who is who around here.  And I am certain you jumped into the discussion between Zapatos and me, though I might be wrong about that.  I was also suspended for 10 days, 7 of them for Zapatos action, and it's difficult under those circumstances to keep things straight.  

  4 hours ago, zapatos said:

Nope, that was me, another one of iNow's sock puppets.     

Appearing on page 3 of On my way out the door.  

Edited by coffeesippin
evidence to a statement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Q-reeus said:

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?

 

9 hours ago, Q-reeus said:

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.

Bondi may have been notable in the scientific community, as to were Hoyle and Gold. I don't have too much to say as much is beyond me, but obviously neg mass is not contradictory with GR. Whether iyo is right or wrong, or Bondi's opinion, will in time be revealed I would imagine as continued research takes place. That's about the best we can say at this time, so the exact nature of DM and DE remain as is...uncertain. 

I would also add that any Cyclic universe model, which I believe is the same as the old Oscillating model of the fifties, by its very nature, entails a BB, actually a number of BB's. My question in that regard is why are we not seeing cosmological blue shifts over large scales?

found this......

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263659720_Solving_the_negative_mass_paradox

Abstract:

In 1957 H Bondi showed that the introduction of negative masses in the universe goes with a preposterous phenomenon: The so called run away effect: when a positive mass encounters a negative mass, it escapes and the second one runs after it. We show that a bimetric description of the universe goes with a  different interaction laws system. Masses with the same signs attract each other through Newton's law. Masses with opposite signs repel each other through Anti-Newton's law. This produces a lot of phenomena which makes it unecessary to recourse to Dark matter.

 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

also.....

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.

There are some subtle physical laws that imply that the creation of negative energy, in the form of exotic matter or not, has limitations called “quantum interest“.  Anytime a bit of negative energy is generated (and the methods involved create, like, none), a larger, overwhelming pulse of positive energy must be created almost immediately.  In fact, we’ve never directly observed negative energy and it’s very, very likely that we’ll never be able to do more than infer that negative energy exists.

But anti-matter definitely exists, and can be created and stored (a few particles at a time) here on Earth.  Many particle accelerators today generate and use anti-protons all the time.  When you smash stuff together, or otherwise get a mess of energy in one place, new particles are generated; half matter and half anti-matter.  It’s basically annihilation in reverse.  Once you create a spray of new particles, you sort the matter and anti-matter apart, keep the anti-particles ionized, and store them (briefly) in a “magnetic bottle“.  If they ever becomes electrically neutral the magnetic bottle stops working, and they fall and annihilate with the ordinary matter at the bottom of the container.  Anti-particles are totally the hot potatoes of particle physics.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Edited by Q-reeus
s -> e

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Q-reeus said:

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.

I think that was my fault - a side effect of merging in the post from coffeesippin (that also changed the title - hey, I’m new here, ok!)

i’ll Move it back. 

18 minutes ago, Q-reeus said:

And btw, the original thread title during its Speculations sojourn:
'Quantum Fluctuation Origin and Anti-Gravity Voids Expansion Theory of the Univers'    (yes an s was missing at the end - likely owing to title exceeding allowed length)

I’ll fix that, as well when I’m not on my phone. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Q-reeus said:

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.

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. 

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Edited by Q-reeus
'social commentary'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Q-reeus said:

 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!

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.

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

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.

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.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now