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

## Recommended Posts

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.....

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.

##### Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Q-reeus said:

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/

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.

Quote

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

Quote

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.

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

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

Quote

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

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".

Edited by beecee

##### Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Q-reeus said:

To deny there are entrenched positions in mainstream science is your prerogative.

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.

##### Share on other sites
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

"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?]

Edited by Q-reeus
complaint

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Q-reeus said:

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?

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.

Quote

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?

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.

Edited by beecee

##### Share on other sites
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.

[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.

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Q-reeus said:

[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.

Perhaps you have reading issues...The reply was with regards to as I inferred here....."Need I mention again, that this is simply all hypothetical, and as of today and taking into account the OP and the late addition",  You of course being the late addition. And all facts are correct.

Quote

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.

And yet you replied....again.  Knowledgeable or not, and whether you like it or not, my 110% support for mainstream, obviously also has the vast majority of experts also giving the same 110% support. The same bluster stands...your so called request for expert comment has been given with my reputable link, and of course the overall likelyhood of anything resembling negative mass is near zero and speculative at best.

2 hours ago, beecee said:

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.

Edited by beecee

##### Share on other sites
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.

##### Share on other sites
9 hours 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 e was missing at the end - likely owing to title exceeding allowed length)

Fixed.

##### Share on other sites

We'll ignore the usual denial of the likely fact that negative mass probably does not exist and that this is pure speculation and of course the reason why it is where it is, in speculations.......here's some more links.....

### Negative Mass in General Relativity?

Science News ran a piece the other week about a paper that has appeared in PRD titled “Negative mass bubbles in de Sitter spacetime”. The Science News article is behind a paywall, but don’t worry I’ll tell you everything you need to know.

The arxiv version of the paper is here. Since I’m quoted in the Science News piece saying something to the extent that I have my reservations but think it’s a promising direction of study, I have gotten a lot of questions about negative masses in General Relativity lately. So here a clarification.

First one has to be careful what one means with mass. There are three types of masses: inertial mass, passive gravitational mass, and active gravitational mass. In General Relativity these masses, or their generalization in terms of tensors respectively, are normally assumed to be identical.

The equality of inertial and passive gravitational mass is basically the equivalence principle.

...

The positive mass theorem, in contrast to what its name suggests, does not state that one cannot have particles with negative masses. It states instead, roughly, that if your local matter is normal matter and obeys certain plausible assumptions, then the total energy and mass are also positive. You thus cannot have stars with negative masses, regardless of how you bend your space-time. This isn’t as trivial a statement as it sounds because the gravitational interaction contributes to the definition of these integrated quantities. In any case, the positive mass theorem holds in space that is asymptotically flat.

Now what they point out in the new paper is that for all we know we don’t live in asymptotically flat space, but we live in asymptotic de-Sitter space because observational evidence speaks for a positive cosmological constant. In this case the positive mass theorem doesn’t apply. Then they go on to construct a negative mass solution in asymptotic de Sitter space. I didn’t check the calculation in detail, part of it is numerical, but it all sounds plausible to me.

However, it is somewhat misleading to call the solution that they find a negative mass solution.

...
Selling this as a negative mass solution is like one of these ads that say you’ll save 10$if you spend at least$100 – in the end your expenses are always positive. The negative mass in their solution corresponds to the supposed savings that you make. You never really get to see them. What really matters are the total expenses. And these are always positive. There are thus no negative mass particles in this scenario whatsoever. Further, the cosmological constant is necessary for these solutions to exist, so you cannot employ them to replace the cosmological constant.

It also must be added that showing the existence of a certain solution to Einstein’s field equations is one thing, showing that they have a reasonable chance to actually be realized in Nature is an entirely different thing. For this you have to come up with a mechanism to create them and you also have to show that they are stable. Neither point is addressed in the paper.

...

In summary, I think it’s an interesting work, but so far it’s an entirely theoretical construct and its relevance for the description of cosmological dynamics is entirely unclear. There are no negative mass particles in this paper in any sensible interpretation of this term.

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

and another.....

# How can something have a negative mass, and what does that mean?

If a particle could have a negative mass it certainly would be hard to understand. That is why physicists define mass to be always positive. So by definition there is no such thing as 'negative' mass. This is not an arbitrary definition as there are very deep reasons as to why a negative mass could never be physical.

Sometimes, in employing mathematical models to describe Nature, we come across solutions to equations that may allow for negative masses. For example, the formula for the energy of a relativistic particle is

E2 = m2*c4 + p2*c2.

So a particle with a certain positive energy but no momentum could presumably have a positive or negative mass.

...

These 'negative' solutions are simply not physical and are dropped. Not everything that has mathematical meaning has physical meaning!

Another place where people like to talk about negative masses is in reference to 'tachyons.'

...

Such a state (like Dirac's 'negative energy' states) are non-physical. These particles would have imaginary masses (that is the mass-squared is negative) and this is just as unphysical as a negative mass or a negative energy. Thus such solutions are always discarded or removed from any theory that claims to describe Nature.
Answered by: Brent Nelson, M.A. Physics, Ph.D. Student, UC Berkeley

5 hours ago, Q-reeus said:

[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.

Gives self an uppercut...Now how did I miss that poor example of quoting, or in effect, misquoting.......What was really said and explained elsewhere was...

6 hours ago, beecee said:

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,

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

Other 8 points left out for sake of convenience. No "you" there at all and specifically explained in the highlighted text. and obviously no correction needed.

##### Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

I have edited the previous post. It's copyright infringement to post entire articles from somewhere else.

9 hours ago, Q-reeus said:

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.

9 hours 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.

!

Moderator Note

This part of the discussion is off-topic. Let's keep the focus on the physics.

Anyone is free to discuss the entrenchment (or lack thereof) of mainstream physics in a new thread.

##### Share on other sites

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......

"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
Edited by beecee

##### Share on other sites
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......

"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

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.

Edited by Q-reeus
Bonner -> Bonnor

##### Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Q-reeus said:

That propensity for quote mining brings the recent fork here full circle in a way:
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.

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.

Edited by beecee

##### Share on other sites
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.

Edited by Q-reeus

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Q-reeus said:

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.

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

Edited by beecee

##### Share on other sites
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.

##### Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Q-reeus said:

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.

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

##### Share on other sites
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:
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.

##### Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Q-reeus said:

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.

Yes, certainly I get it, At last.

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

Not just speculative/unproven/hypothetical - utterly impossible.

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

Quote

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:

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.

Quote

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.

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.

Edited by beecee

##### Share on other sites
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.

##### Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Q-reeus said:

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.

!

Moderator Note

The announcement of such navel-gazing is also off-topic. Was there a part of "keep the focus on the physics" you didn't understand.

(That's rhetorical. Don't respond to the modnote)

14 hours ago, beecee said:

With all due respect q-reeus, you obviously have an agenda,

!

Moderator Note

Also off-topic. This kind of remark tends to elicit further off-topic responses, as we can see here.

14 hours ago, Q-reeus said:

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.

!

Moderator Note

Exhibit (whatever; certainly not "A").

## Create an account

Register a new account