Repulsive gravity as an alternative to dark energy (Part 2: In the quantum vacuum)

TabulaMentis

2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2012

If there was no BB, then where did the cyclic universe originate? Furthermore, why not consider spacetime fabric dark energy?

TimESimmons

1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 01, 2012

Told you so:-

http://www.presto...ndex.htm

BLACK HOLES, EXPANSION, AND DARK ENERGY

In the continuum of space and time, exists the dichotomy of matter and energy. All things exist as both matter and energy, but are experienced as one or the other.
As energy, all things exist as wave patterns. Most wave patterns are interferences of simpler wave patterns. The simplest wave forms are those that do not interfere with other waves. These simplest wave forms hold their shape as they propagate. There are three such wave forms.
The first such wave form is seen in three dimensions as the spherical expansion wave of a bomb blast, and in two dimensions as the circular wave of expansion on the water where a rock was tossed in. The second wave form is seen in three dimensions as the cone of sonic boom following an aircraft traveling faster than sound, and in two dimensions as the V-wake on the water where the boat is traveling faster than the water wave.

science_dan

1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 01, 2012

The third wave form is seen in three dimensions as the propagation torus of a smoke ring and is seen in two dimensions as the double vortexes of an oar stroke on the water.
The Torus is a particle of discrete exchange, from one point to another. The object exchanges position and momentum. While the spherical wave shows position, and the conic wave shows momentum, the torus shows both at the same time, and has a dynamic finite unbounded reality. The volumes of the cone, sphere, and torus are mathematically related as static objects.
The Universe is a local density fluctuation. (a wave pulse) On this local density fluctuation wave, lesser wave forms may exist. All simple wave forms are also local density fluctuations, and as such are indeed universes in their own right, where other waves may exist.

science_dan

1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2012

Consider the torus as a universe. Einstein said that gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration. There is both linear acceleration and angular acceleration. Although the torus as a whole travels in a straight line, every local point on the torus travels in a circle and experiences angular acceleration.
The rubber sheet model of gravity and curved space translates directly to the propagating torus with angular acceleration. Acceleration is downward on the rubber sheet and outward on the torus. The tension field that separates the inside of the torus from the outside holds its shape as a simple two dimensional field of space and time just as the rubber sheet does.

antialias_physorg

4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 01, 2012

then where did the cyclic universe originate

Counterquestion:

If there is no universe (of any kind) - and hence no spacetime: How long does such a non-state persist? No 'time' at all. Existence is not so much a creation as a tautology - there is just no alternative to it.*

(* logically. Though I'd be the first to admit that the concept of logic is not necessarily applicable to non-states)

WhiteJim

2 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2012

This article is in line with what I have felt intuitively for more than 10 years. I say BINGO to the team working on this. How they can finish off the research and find some simple testable perameters for proof ... as we know the BBT, DMT & DET currently have no plausible proofs or testability to them.

Much better scientifically founded explanation than the BBT and DM and DE artificial constructs.

Gagarin

1 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2012

then where did the cyclic universe originate

Could the Big Bang have been a quick conversion of antimatter into matter?
http://www.physor...ter.html

wealthychef

3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2012

Told you so:-

http://www.presto...ndex.htm

ugliest. website. ever

rawa1

1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 01, 2012

While matter and antimatter are gravitationally self-attractive, they are mutually repulsive

In dense aether model it's more difficult - the matter is attractive to self, the antimatter is repulsive to self, the mutual interaction of matter and antimatter depends on distance: at the proximity/high energy density they're repulsive, at the medium distance are attractive (dark matter), at the large distance / tiny energy density scale are repulsive again. The antimatter is living at inverse time, so it's attractive gravity is perceived as a repulsive one with material observers.

DaFranker

1 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2012

@antialias: You make a good point, as long as this is only to disprove the idea that an origin is required. I would clarify that this still does not exclude the possibility of an origin state, it merely indicates that one is not required. A finite existence time is still not illogical, though it would make for a "weird" universe considering all the latest scientific observations and theories.

TimESimmons

1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2012

I don't think anti-gravity matter is anti-matter though because there are several places where anti-gravity matter and nomal matter are co-located without anihilations.
http://www.presto...ndex.htm

rawa1

1 / 5 (10) Feb 01, 2012

For all practical purposes, spacetime does not exist.

General relativity is practical enough. In dense aether model the space-time has even physical character of density gradient of vacuum, which is forming the environment for spreading of transverse waves of light in similar way, like the water surface is forming an environment for surface ripples. This artefact has many measurable qualities, like the space-time metric, number of time and spatial dimensions, degree of freedoms, curvature, energy density and so on. The brane model of universe promoted with string theory has a similar meaning and it's using as an colliding physical entity in ekpyrotic cosmology.

Therefore the ideas, such artefact physically doesn't exist physically are both unsubstantial, both they lack the new testable predictions in which they could be validated. Instead of it, the ignorance of space-time concept in contemporary physics would cause a lot of conceptual and practical problems.

SteveL

5 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2012

I'd tend to think that if antimatter, per your dense aether model, is self repulsive and repulsive to regular matter would we not be able to detect an enhanced expansion rate compared to what we are seeing?

Also are you saying that only at a medium distance antimatter tends to stablize universal expansion? Do you have an explaination for this mechanism? Because to me it would seem that this same stablization would be "universal", not just local. Per this theory is this what stabelizes expantion at near galactic scales?

rawa1

1 / 5 (12) Feb 01, 2012

I'd tend to think that if antimatter ... is self repulsive and repulsive to regular matter would we not be able to detect an enhanced expansion rate compared to what we are seeing

As I said above, at very long distances the antimatter is repulsive again, so that it contributes to dark energy. At the proximity it's attracted to density gradient of vacuum of negative curvature of space-time, which is surrounding the massive bodies.

http://www.aether...ion3.gif

These gradients indeed repulse mutually, being of negative space-time curvature. It manifests itself with kick of black holes during their mutual collisions and coalesce.

http://www.scienc...0541.htm

ppnlppnl

4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2012

Man, I feel a disturbance in the 'tard today.

GSwift7

4.3 / 5 (17) Feb 01, 2012

It is not a new hypothesis but a consequence of the Schwinger mechanism, well known in quantum field theories

This guy is even farther out from mainstream than that Villas guy from Part 1. The Schwinger model has a couple of big problems. It predicts magnetic monopoles at scales where we have not yet found them to exist, and it failes to predict one type of boson that we know exists.

To say that the Schwinger model is "well known in particle physics" without mentioning that it isn't used any more is kinda disengenuous. It's like making a new theory based on the idea that the Earth is flat and saying "the flat earth theory is well-known amongst cartographers".

I'll say the same thing I said in Part 1: He's talking about negative mass. That's the only way to get negative gravity. We know the mass of anti-particles. We have measured them many times. We know their mass is not negative. His negative gravity theory ends there.

jack_sarfatti

1 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2012

This theory is not correct in my opinion. Virtual fermion anti-fermion pairs cause attractive gravity. Virtual bosons cause repulsive gravity. See Peter Milonni's "Quantum Vacuum" and John Peacock's "Cosmological Physics."

If the density of virtual fermion anti-fermion pairs exceeds that of virtual bosons you have an attractive dark matter field that mimics w = 0 CDM. Repulsive dark energy is the opposite. For more details see stardrive.org website.

Shinichi D_

3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2012

If the gravitational repulsion between particle and antiparticle pairs is strong enough to push galaxyclusters apart, how can they converge and annihilate each other?
And are two of these particle-antiparticle pairs gravitationaly neurtal to each other? Then how can the voids themselves expand?

I still think the quantum vacuum is a (significant) portion of the answer. And DE haters: no one said that DE is not somthing known. Its not like we have to find something very exotic in space, with a label reading: Dark Energy.

WhiteJim

5 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2012

If the gravitational repulsion between particle and antiparticle pairs is strong enough to push galaxyclusters apart, how can they converge and annihilate each other?

The exact same way that gravitational attraction did not result in a giant black hole out of the whole universe. At small scales the repulsion is the same strength as attraction and insignificant to the motion required for particle anniliation and impacts

Callippo

1 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2012

It predicts magnetic monopoles at scales where we have not yet found them to exist

The monopoles are behaving like black holes with asymmetric jets and such artifacts were observed already. I'm not speaking for Schwinger's model here - I'm just illustrating, the mainstream physics cannot recognize even phenomena/artifacts, which are supporting its own theories (the extradimensions of string theory, microblack holes or gravitational waves are another examples).

flashgordon

1 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2012

For people who don't like the dark matter and energy puzzle . . .

http://wwwscienti...cal.html

MorituriMax

not rated yet Feb 01, 2012

Has anybody ever addressed the non-observed part of the Universe that we can't see? How big is it? What is the possible true size of our Universe and is that even something we can calculate/speculate about re:missing antimatter?

Isaacsname

not rated yet Feb 01, 2012

http://en.wikiped...hydrogen

http://en.wikiped...esonator

http://en.wikiped...c_mirror

http://en.wikiped...volution

http://en.wikiped...t_method

http://en.wikiped...l_matrix

http://en.wikiped...solution

Callippo

1 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2012

Has anybody ever addressed the non-observed part of the Universe that we can't see? How big is it?

In AWT the Universe appears like water surface being observed with its own waves and it's infinite, simply because we have no constrain for it. It's visible part is limited in similar way, like the landscape under the fog. There already exists some observational evidence for this model. http://www.techno...v/26333/

javjav

not rated yet Feb 01, 2012

If there is no universe (of any kind) - and hence no spacetime: How long does such a non-state persist? No 'time' at all. Existence is not so much a creation as a tautology - there is just no alternative to it.*

Good point. If the starting point is "nothing", only entities that can appear "from nothing" will appear. And if they can exist they will appear into existence, and virtual particles could be an example of it. The "total nothingness" is just a concept invented by humans, it seems intuitive but it is not a physical possibility. The quantum void can create what we perceive as "space-time", just as virtual particles seem to appear "from nothing".

Callippo

1 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2012

For people who don't like the dark matter and energy puzzle

In AWT the formal understanding of Universe has its dual part. In particular, the intuitive understanding of dark matter is easier, than the rigorous one. We have at least dozen of formal models of dark matter, but because we don't understand this subject at its intuitive level, we aren't able to decide, which of this model is most correct, if at all. Richard Feynman: "The next great awakening of the human intellect may well produce a method of understanding the qualitative content of the equations."

A slight paradigm shift, so to say:

Max Tegmark, a MIT teacher: The Mathematical Universe

http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646

versus

Alan P. Lightman, a MIT teacher: We are living in a universe uncalculable by science.

http://www.harper.../0083720

Urgelt

5 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2012

If there was no BB, then where did the cyclic universe originate?

I'm not sure a "Big Bang" is precluded by this quantum vacuum hypothesis. What's precluded by accelerating expansion is a "Big Crunch."

Here's an idea (probably not original): imagine an expanding universe. Somewhere within it, a "Big Bang" happens, and within the old expanding universe, you now have a smaller universe, also expanding. Wash, rinse, repeat. There, we've got a cycle. (Not saying we *understand* the cycle, but we've got one.)

With this model, you'd perhaps expect to find echoes of previous "Big Bangs" in the cosmological background radiation, hmm?

How far we can see out into the fringes of older universes is limited by red-shift, probably. Past where we can see, there may be old fringes racing away from us at nearly the speed of light and red-shifted to undetectability.

It's just fun thought-experiment, though. I'll let the experts (I'm not one) sort out what's true.

Noumenon

1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2012

He's talking about negative mass. That's the only way to get negative gravity. We know the mass of anti-particles. We have measured them many times. We know their mass is not negative. His negative gravity theory ends there. - GSwift7

As I pointed out in the other thread, I don't think he's talking about "negative mass" (neither guy), I think it's mass with negative gravitational charge. Not that I can make much sense of this, though it makes a little more sense than part 1, with the vacuum and cosmological constant. IOW, gravity would have /- charge like EM. People don't think of gravity in terms of charge because it is only positive,... but it is a "charge".

Noumenon

1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2012

,... gravity would have plus/minus charge like EM, and there is a difference between "negative mass" and "mass with negative gravitational charge". Anti-matter has opposite electromagnetic charge from matter, but the same sense of mass,... perhaps anti-matter also has negative gravitational charge, but again the same sense of mass. (?)

Deesky

5 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2012

If there is no universe (of any kind) - and hence no spacetime: How long does such a non-state persist? No 'time' at all. Existence is not so much a creation as a tautology - there is just no alternative to it.

Interesting take, if a little stilted toward a semantic argument - how long does a non-existent state persist?

An alternative take, since we're getting philosophical, might be that the BB wasn't the singular source of spacetime, but an event which occurred in an overarching and infinite spacetime manifold. In this hypothetical scenario, you could very well ask the question how long it took for our BB to occur (assuming there are similar events to compare them to from a privileged perspective). This is a different take to a (single) cyclic universe - more like a bubble universe model in which spacetime always exists.

Anyway, it's all fun speculation which we'll likely never know the answer to.

Edit: I see Urgelt has posted a similar concept during my post :)

vacuum-mechanics

1 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2012

For people who don't like the dark matter and energy puzzle . . .

http://wwwscienti...cal.html

And for people, who like dark energy and dark matter, please try Dark energy is in front of your eyes

http://www.vacuum...id=14=en

mrtea

not rated yet Feb 01, 2012

Told you so:-

http://www.presto...ndex.htm

Oh, I don't know...

http://www.nikibr...ebsites/

http://thebiguglywebsite.com/

mrtea

not rated yet Feb 01, 2012

Sorry, my edit mucked up my reply. It was meant to be a reply to the post about ugly websites.

Turritopsis

2.6 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2012

We know the mass of anti-particles. We have measured them many times. We know their mass is not negative. His negative gravity theory ends there.

At the sub-atomic level particles cannot be picked up and put on to a scale to get an exertion force. You can't weigh sub-atomic particles wrt earths gravitational field to find their mass.

It is more complex than you realize.

Sub-atomic particles are quantized, their energy levels are measured and relativistically converted to mass from the equivalence principle.

The amount of mass for antiparticles has been derived but whether it is positive or negative can only be evaluated by getting a substantial amount of antimatter together and weighing it. If the weight is negative in earths gravitational field then so is the mass.

Antiparticle experiments have given us the energy levels from which we've derived mass levels, whether the mass is negative or positive hasn't been experimentally confirmed.

Seeker2

2 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2012

Told you so:-
http://www.presto...ndex.htm

ugliest. website. ever

Says dark matter is caused by a low density area of anti-matter, or whatever they call it. If matter and anti-matter are repulsive it follows that dark matter will repel anti-matter. Seems like there could be a problem with cause and effect.

Seeker2

3 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2012

virtual particles seem to appear "from nothing".

Virtual particles appear because of the uncertainty principle. Note: nothing is a form of certainty and that violates the uncertainty principle.

Seeker2

1 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2012

What's precluded by accelerating expansion is a "Big Crunch."

If antimatter is repelled by gravity then it will be spreading faster and farther out into spacetime than even matter is. The farther anti-matter is expelled from spacetime it will increase the volume even faster, apparently causing the accelerating expansion. The end game seems to be anti-matter in an outer shell and matter in an inner shell. When this configuration becomes stable the expansion stops. Electrostatic forces may then come into play causing the outer shell to collapse onto the inner shell, which may be where the BB started. Just a thought.

Seeker2

1 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2012

If the weight is negative in earths gravitational field then so is the mass.

I believe per GR anti-matter is travelling in reverse (backwards) time. So it appears to be backing away from gravitational fields instead of attracted by them. The idea apparently being there are opposite directions in all 4 dimensions. The 4-d CM of spacetime is going nowhere (without an external force, but then that force should then be incorporated into the U). Probably the closest thing to certainty in this U that you will ever find is this non-accelerating 4-d CM.

Seeker2

1 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2012

When this configuration becomes stable the expansion stops. Electrostatic forces may then come into play causing the outer shell to collapse onto the inner shell, which may be where the BB started.

Note in the end game matter/antimatter decay into radiation, except for the leptons (charged particles). Since electrostatic forces are much stronger than gravitational forces, gravity really doesn't come into play as much as the electrostatic forces, and the attractive electrostic forces take over and cause collapse back to the BB. Some gravity interacting with the opposing electrostatic forces would cause the inner and outer shells to form in a symmetrical configuration.

TimESimmons

1 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2012

ppnlppnl I know I'm going to regret asking but - 'tard? Custard?

TimESimmons

1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2012

Seeker2
No mate it doesn't say that. Read again.
http://www.presto...ndex.htm

vlaaing peerd

5 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2012

I somehow get the idea that the possibility to explain certain phenomena by cooking up such a theory is more important then accepting it flaws in explaining things like that the universe seems to be increasingly expanding.

Like mentioned before in the comments, I'd think that repulsive gravity would indeed imply negative or imaginairy mass which is not a know property of antimatter. What is even worse, it would show tachyonic (faster than light) behaviour and that's not what we're seeing with antimatter at all. It has mass and it does keep to our speeds.

rawa1

1 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2012

..a theory is more important then accepting it flaws in explaining things like that the universe seems to be increasingly expanding...

Dense aether model explains both, so you needn't to sacrifice one feature of theory for the another one. At the water surface a two kind of solitons is always spreading: those formed with surface waves (Russel's solitons) and underwater waves (Falaco solitons). The dispersion of surface ripples with these underwater ones explains the formation of photons and their dispersion with distance, i.e. the red shift. It's simple, transparent model and completely physically relevant one, as it relies on well known phenomena, not abstract concepts like the imaginary mass or repulsive gravity. And it's very general too.

rawa1

1 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2012

The formulation of theory of antimatter behaviour based on concepts like the equivalence principle, mass-energy conservation or imaginary-negative mass is particularly risky, because all these concepts are heavily violated just at the case of antimatter. You'll need a very robust and general geometric model, which is not dependent on the existing theories (the quantum mechanics and general relativity in particular) at all - yet it provides the connection to these theories in accordance to the correspondence principle. The dense aether model is particular suitable for these purposes, because it's intrinsically hyperdimensional.

antialias_physorg

4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2012

An alternative take, since we're getting philosophical, might be that the BB wasn't the singular source of spacetime, but an event which occurred in an overarching and infinite spacetime manifold.

The problem is that then you move the goalpoast simply to the larger structure. Because then you have to say how long THAT superstructure exists and where it came from. (or, if we don't postulate it as having a temporal dimension we need to ask how big it is - which is basically the same problem)
That is why I said 'universe of any kind'. This includes any overarching structures...or WSOGMM (Whole Sort Of General Mish Mash) as Douglas Adams put it.

I perceive the problem of "something ex nihilo" as the erroneous notion that 'nothingnes' has an existence of its own. It's like the number zero. There exists no ENTITY that represents zero elephants. It has no reality. Zero is just a (helpful) concept. Much like infinity.

rawa1

1 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2012

There exists no ENTITY that represents zero elephants. It has no reality. Zero is just a (helpful) concept. Much like infinity.

It depends on the observational perspective and observational scope, because in AWT universe is unlimited (so that literally everything is possible there), but the observable universe is always limited, because every observer in it is smaller than the rest of Universe. Inside of limited observable Universe the absence of many possible states can be expected. But you can walk along observable Universe and reveal a new areas in it like the tourist, who is revealing infinite landscape covered with fog. Apparently the definition of what is possible and what cannot is determined with definition of observational perspective and scope of observation. For example, we can be pretty sure, no elephant exists inside of my home. But can we be sure, it's still absent in my city or country?

Eoprime

5 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2012

He's talking about negative mass. That's the only way to get negative gravity. We know the mass of anti-particles. We have measured them many times. We know their mass is not negative. His negative gravity theory ends there. - GSwift7

Would we see the difference between pos.<>neg. mass in those experiments?

antialias_physorg

3.3 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2012

so that literally everything is possible there

No. No serious theory includes true infinities. That leads to all sorts of problems. If you have no infinities then 'everything' is not possible.

rawa1

1 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2012

No serious theory includes true infinities.

After then the general relativity or string theory aren't serious theories, because they lead into infinities often (mass of objects moving with light speed and/or gravity field inside of black holes for example) - string theory even handles them routinely via renormalization. On the presence of singularities many predictions of these theories are based (the existence of event horizon for example). More realistic explanation of your post can be, you simply have no idea, how the mainstream theories are really working.

antialias_physorg

4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2012

After then the general relativity or string theory aren't serious theories, because they lead into infinities often (mass of objects moving with light speed and/or gravity field inside of black holes for example)

Note that these thnigs are expressed as limits - not actually possible values in these theories.
The speed of a massive object is limited because it takes energy to accelerate an object. The energy in the universe is limited. So even if you converted all, except for one most fundamental massive particle, into energy and used it toaccelerate that particle the mass would not reach infinity.

Same with black holes. The crushing of the interior mass does not (presumably) stop as there is no counterforce large enough. But that does not mean that an infinity is instantaneously achieved. The compacting process takes time. even if we waited for the entire lifetime of the universe (the time until the last black hole evaporates) there wold not be an infinity.

GSwift7

3.3 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2012

I don't think anti-gravity matter is anti-matter though because there are several places where anti-gravity matter and nomal matter are co-located without anihilations

huh? There's no such thing as anti-gravity matter, as far as we know. Where do you propose that anti-gravity matter has been observed?

Antimatter, on the other hand, has been observed in many places. It looks just like normal matter and has the same electrical, magnetic and visual properties as it's normal matter counterparts. This has been confirmed many times through observations of antimatter found in nature and in particle accelerators. We know that antimatter does not have anti-gravity or negative mass.

Rawa1: There's no such thing as antigravity, so stop talking about it as if you know anything about it. It's like bigfoot, okay?

GSwift7

2.9 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2012

Good point. If the starting point is "nothing", only entities that can appear "from nothing" will appear. And if they can exist they will appear into existence, and virtual particles could be an example of it. The "total nothingness" is just a concept invented by humans, it seems intuitive but it is not a physical possibility. The quantum void can create what we perceive as "space-time", just as virtual particles seem to appear "from nothing

When you're talking about things that happen inside our Universe, then you can talk about things like the quantum void, spacetime, and events.

On the other hand, when you are talking about things outside our Universe, or "before" our Universe, all those notions go out the window. There's no quantum void without a Universe. The entire notion of an "event", as you know it, is a non-entity. There's not even "nothing" without a Universe for the "nothing" to not exist in.

It is a mistake to think that quantum theory applies in that case.

GSwift7

3 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2012

To Neumonon:

Your idea of an object with normal mass but negative gravity doesn't make any sense. By the definitions of mass and gravity as we know them, that isn't possible. No mathematically consistent theory shows negative gravity without having negative mass. String theory, general relativity, etc. They all require negative mass to produce negative gravity, and we know that antiparticles do not have negative mass.

To the moron who tried to tell me that we can't measure the mass of subatomic particles on page 2:

good lord dude, try reading!@! I just googled it and was able to find good info in three of the first five links that came up. Here's a good page from the University of Illinois:

http://van.physic...?id=1209

They describe a few different methods that are used to get extremely accurate mass measurements.

That takes us back to Neumonon. We would DEFINITELY know if antiparticles had negative momentum (product of negative gravity)

Gawad

3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2012

To the moron who tried to tell me that we can't measure the mass of subatomic particles on page 2:

good lord dude, try reading!@!

Gary, I think the crackpots are starting to get to you. We have to tell the foul from the fair...and from the fowl and pick our battles: only a few crackpots are truly worthy of having the righteous rip them a new one. And the Neutron Revulsion Guy--let not his blasphemous name be spoken in these unworthy halls!--has appartently imploded into a singularity, thereby invalidating his own theory...so that's one less crackpot already. Deep breath, man! Deep breath! ;^)

Ah, but yes, the idea that we can't measure the mass of particles as negative or positive was indeed pretty moronic. Aw, what the hell...go ahead, rip 'em a new one!

G.

rawa1

1 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2012

even if we waited for the entire lifetime of the universe (the time until the last black hole evaporates) there would not be an infinity

In the same way I argued the impossibility of black holes many times here and I was downvoted for it (actually I presume, this argument just comes from me, because we cannot find it anywhere else on the web) (in general relativity the black holes are formed with vacuum and the light travels with speed of light trough it - so it's apparently dense aether argument - not relativistic one).

But when I say, the general relativity theory of black holes is BS because it cannot lead into infinities predicted, I'll get downvoted in the same way. Now suddenly the same infinities would be expected if not required with religious trolls.

Thrasymachus

2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2012

The only way I can see how antimatter could have a "negative gravitational charge" would be if antimatter breaks the Equivalence Principle, which holds that inertial and gravitational mass are the same thing. I don't think a convincing case has been made that antimatter doesn't follow the EQ. Fundamentally, it would violate the observations of partical annihilation and E=mc^2.

rawa1

1 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2012

Anyway, I enjoyed of you being upvoted with just yyz or Gawad for usage of AWT arguments based on dense aether model...;-) This is just an example, how human argumentation really works - the arguments are used for wining of discussion, not as a tool for better understanding of reality http://www.nytime...ert.html

rawa1

1 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2012

would be if antimatter breaks the Equivalence Principle, which holds that inertial and gravitational mass are the same thing

This is quite correct insight and it was presented here many times. The dark matter violates it in similar way, which may serve as an indicia, matter and antimater are closely related each other. The dark matter exhibits the gravitational lensing, but it doesn't exhibit the gravitational action to ordinary matter - it decreases the gravity instead. http://aetherwave...ter.html The Falaco solitons at the water surface can be used for the analogy of both neutrinos, both dark matter or antimatter - they're curving the water surface, but in opposite direction, than the ordinary matter in 3D perspective. From 2D perspective of surface ripples light this positive deform appears in the same way, though. It means, the CPT parity of matter and antimatter is violated in extra-dimensions only.

rawa1

1 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2012

It means, if we detect the CPT parity violation of matter and antimatter, it could serve as an evidence of extradimensions too in context of AWT. But the fact, the evidence of extradimensions will require the violation of equivalence principle will not enjoy the relativists, because (the validity of) general relativity itself is based on equivalence principle. The LQG theorists will be particularly upset with it, because such evidence of extradimensions of string theory will violate basic postulate of their theory. At the case of antimatter problem you can see, the LQG and string theory are mutually inconsistent each other at the trivial logics level.

Turritopsis

1 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2012

Antimatter floats up in Earths gravity.

This is experimental evidence. All other forces removed; gravity isolated; antimatter falling away from source of gravity.
This proves matter to be gravitationally repulsive to antimatter.
-Feynman would call it confirmed.

This moron has not seen antimatter fall up down left or right or in any opposite polar direction available around a point of incidence (of which there are literally infinite of).

rawa1

1 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2012

Antimatter floats up in Earths gravity.

This is (partially) correct insight.

This proves matter to be gravitationally repulsive to antimatter.

Nope, this is not a correct insight. You may now guess why - if you don't want to read my previous or future posts. A hint: if something floats on something, it's not repelled from it.

This is experimental evidence.

Nope, we have no conclusive experimental evidence of this behaviour yet. We have only indirect observational one.

Thrasymachus

2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2012

I'd like to see that experiment, Turritopsis. I didn't think there was enough antimatter in the world to do a sufficiently sensitive gravity test.

Turritopsis

1 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2012

We know their mass is not negative.

I suspect the mass is not negative. There is a lot of supporting evidence of this but no conclusive experimental data.

If this happened to be the case then all of the current data would fall out of place math wise so a theoretical reworking would take place. This has happened many a times over in my experience.

How do you "know?"

Maybe you're privy to data I'm not, if so please share.

Turritopsis

1 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2012

Apologies Rawa1,

Antimatter floats up in Earths gravity.

This is experimental evidence. All other forces removed; gravity isolated; antimatter falling away from source of gravity.
This proves matter to be gravitationally repulsive to antimatter.

-hypothetical situation

Gawad

3 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2012

Anyway, I enjoyed of you being upvoted with just yyz or Gawad for usage of AWT arguments based on dense aether model...;-) This is just an example, how human argumentation really works - the arguments are used for wining of discussion, not as a tool for better understanding of reality http://www.nytime...ert.html

Says the guy can't produce any evidence, only vague analogies (wave on water surface, anyone?), borks up the math (but draws pretty doodles), dismisses physical evidence and expert observations out of hand, and thinks the whole of the scientific community is one big cash grab conspiracy that's plotting againt his big idea and cold fusion! Way to go Jigga! So yes, just in case you missed it...you ARE worthy.

Interesting article, BTW. But you know what, even if reason did evolve to win arguments, it can only do that because REASON WORKS. You should give it a try sometime.

rawa1

1 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2012

dismisses physical evidence and expert observations out of hand

Which physical evidence I dismissed? It's just the mainstream physics, which dismisses various experiments, not me.

and thinks the whole of the scientific community is one big cash grab conspiracy

The ignorance of dense aether model or cold fusion is not a conspiracy. Do you believe, Galieo faced some conspiracy? The conspiracy assumes central control of ideas - but how to call the situation, when every peer is occupying the same biased stance from the same reason? It's a sectarian, not the conspirational thinking.

GSwift7

2 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2012

To Eoprime:

Would we see the difference between pos.<>neg. mass in those experiments?

That's a logical question with a very simple answer. Are you familiar with the equation F=MA (force=mass*acceleration)? If you do like the guy from University of Illinois said, and shoot an antiparticle through a field, there is a force applied to the antiparticle. If the mass is normal then the antiparticle will move in a predictable direction. If the mass is negative (which is necessary for anti-gravity) then the antiparticle will move in the opposite direction expected due to the force. If you rewrite the F=MA equation as F/M=A and you make the M negative then the acceleration changes direction. Using the same equation, you can also see why negative gravity gives negative mass. F/A=M. So, if gravity F is negative and acceleration is positive then mass is negative. I stole that from wiki. You can look it up under the wiki entry on antimater. Thats a really old math proof.

Gawad

3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2012

dismisses physical evidence and expert observations out of hand
Which physical evidence I dismissed?

Pretty much ALL OF IT. How about the stunt you pulled about a week ago accusing Antonio Cuesta and the rest of his team at Yale of FRAUD? Remember that? Eh? And that's just the tip of the iceburg. It's not enough room in dozens of Physorg pages for such a compilation. I let you know the next time I see you do it. Shouldn't be long. http://www.physor...ars.html

It's just the mainstream physics, which dismisses various experiments, not me.

Not dissmissed, liar: unable to reproduce. There's a world of difference, though obvouisly not one you understand. That's why you're full of shit.

and thinks the whole of the scientific community is one big cash grab conspiracy
The ignorance of dense aether model or cold fusion is not a conspiracy.

Except, it's actually understanding that it's crap.

GSwift7

2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2012

to Rawa1:

This is quite correct insight and it was presented here many times. The dark matter violates it in similar way, which may serve as an indicia, matter and antimater are closely related each other. The dark matter exhibits the gravitational lensing, but it doesn't exhibit the gravitational action to ordinary matter

Go look up the difference between dark matter and dark energy and you'll see where your mistake was in the lines I just quoted.

Gawad

3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2012

Do you believe, Galieo faced some conspiracy? The conspiracy assumes central control of ideas - but how to call the situation, when every peer is occupying the same biased stance from the same reason? It's a sectarian, not the conspirational thinking.

Of course Galileo faced a conspiracy, sometimes conspiracies actually occur. But that's not really your problem is it?

Can you tell the difference between conspiracy and personal failure? Your problem is of the latter sort.

Tell us Jigga, What results can you derive from DAWT (rhymes with TWAT)? What are it's postulates? What PRECISE predictions can it make? What PARTICLES does it predict, what are their properties and how do you derive those mathematically from the theory. What physical system can it model with experimentally verifiable results? TELL US GIGGER, TELL US!!! SHOW US GIGGER, SHOW US!!!

Benni

2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2012

Has anybody ever addressed the non-observed part of the Universe that we can't see? How big is it?
In AWT the Universe appears like water surface being observed with its own waves and it's infinite,

Cal, I'm really seriously interested in knowing how many credit hours in college you had in THERMODYNAMICS. You sling this "infinity" stuff around as you know there is some point beyond Earth's solar orbit whereby all the laws of Thermodynamics breaks down, which may mean you really do know something because you've apparently been there.....or Einstein & a lot of the rest of us are just not shmart enough to get to your level of intellect.

OK, I'll start, 10 credit hours of Thermodynamics after 14 in Chemistry & 10 hours physics....your turn

Callippo

1 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2012

how many credit hours in college you had in THERMODYNAMICS

What my credit hours in college have to do with it? We are at scientific news server, try to oppose sanely, if not scientifically. There is no social club.

drel

5 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2012

It is the way an animal's mind percieves it's surroundings. Time and space are not actually real without life to percieve them.

...so by that logic - if a tree falls in the forest and a woman is there to hear it... why isn't she in the kitchen making me a samich?

Gawad

5 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2012

how many credit hours in college you had in THERMODYNAMICS
What my credit hours in college have to do with it? We are at scientific news server, try to oppose sanely, if not scientifically. There is no social club.

Generally speaking, this speaks to your competence, so to speak. What Benni is kindly trying to point out is that you have none. Capiche?

Callippo

1 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2012

In AWT the observable Universe doesn't fulfill thermodynamics at global scale. One half appears expanding, the second one is collapsing with gravity. Do you believe, the gravity is entropic force? If yes, why it leads into collapse, whereas all other entropic phenomena lead to expansion?

Noumenon

1 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2012

Your idea of an object with normal mass but negative gravity doesn't make any sense. By the definitions of mass and gravity as we know them, that isn't possible. No mathematically consistent theory shows negative gravity without having negative mass - GSwift7

It's NOT my idea, nor I'm I not defending this guys theory at all. I pointing out to you now for the 3rd time that the above article speaks of "negative gravitational charge", not negative gravitational mass.

Please see the link below in the section on Villata where it explicitly says "there is no need to change the sign of the gravitational mass of antimatter",...

http://en.wikiped...igravity

Again this does not mean that I can make sense of this idea.

Callippo

1 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2012

"negative gravitational charge", not negative gravitational mass.

What the gravitational charge is supposed to mean? In electrostatics the objects attract mutually when they're of opposite charge. When I'm attracted to Earth, does it mean, I'm of opposite gravitational charge? And if we admit, something like the gravitational charge exists - how to distinguish it from gravitational mass? Isn't the sign of gravitational mass defined just with sign of force, in which the gravitational charge manifests? http://redshift.v...3str.pdf

Noumenon

1 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2012

@GSwift7

Again, from Villata's web site,.. it is stated explicitly, "Villata poses a new theory which assumes that both matter and antimatter have positive mass and energy density"

Noumenon

1 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2012

@Callippo,.. see the following link. He uses CPT in GR to change the sign of gravitational charge for anti-matter, while assuming gravitational mass to be positive as usual.

http://iopscience...ulltext/

ziphead

1.3 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2012

People, go back to work if you have any... or just take your meds.

Seriously, questions of this nature are highly unlikely to be settled on this forum or by this auditorium. Let us all instead wait and see what the real smart people will come up with few years from now.

Callippo

1 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2012

he uses CPT in GR to change the sign of gravitational charge for anti-matter

Yep, I can see it. In the famous ball on the trampoline model of gravitational field the gravitational charge is defined like this:

http://www.aether...arge.gif

This gravitational charge apparently doesn't belong into 4D general relativity, as it's five-dimensional concept. It plays well with water surface model of space-time. The idea is, if you deform this space-time upward or downward, it becomes expanded and it slows down the surface waves spreading in this place like gravitational lens - no matter in which direction the space-time is deformed. But the gravitational interaction of both deforms will still differ - the deforms of the same orientation will repulse mutually like the equally charged bodies in electrostatic.

Callippo

1 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2012

As above mentioned, the concept gravitational charge apparently violates the general relativity, in which the gravitational action of space-time curved always correspond its inertia (mass or energy density) in accordance to the equivalence principle. So if the gravitational attraction of matter and antimatter will depend on its gravitational charge, it cannot depend on their inertial mass anymore. No wonder, this idea didn't impressed the relativists in any way. But it has still a good meaning in every high-dimensional theory of gravity.

Callippo

1 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2012

The objects of the opposite gravitational charge would deflect the light in the same way, like common gravitational lens. They will differ with respect to gravity field - space-time curvature neither. They will behave differently with respect to the gradient of gravitational potential (area bellow the graph of distance dependence of gravitational force). But in classical general relativity there is nothing to differ with. The gravitational potential of all massive bodies in general relativity has a convex curve profile with peak at its center. http://www.aether...apse.gif It enables the black hole solution of gravitational equations. This solution is unphysical though. Inside of our Earth the gravitational force is zero, which means, the gravitational potential has a zero derivation here. And general relativity doesn't provide any way, how to provide such a situation (to change the positive differential into negative one), solve the less.

Callippo

1 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2012

Technically the general relativity has no problem with finding of gravitational field of massive body of finite radius, like the Earth or Sun. It simply approximates it with sufficiently large system of massive points evenly distributed in space and it finds their common solution. The problem arises at the case of modeling black hole in this way. In this moment the whole system of massive points is handled like single one. The formally thinking mathematicians have no problem with extrapolation of dense points into single one. But in this moment we're losing the information about huge positive curvature of space-time at the surface of all massive points involved. This positive curvature is the source of strong repulsive gravitational force and it effectively prohibits their collapse into singularity. It's not only dynamic problem of high space-time density, as alphanumeric mentioned above. It's truly static problem of force equilibrium and the singularity will be never formed

Benni

1.7 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2012

how many credit hours in college you had in THERMODYNAMICS
What my credit hours in college have to do with it? We are at scientific news server, try to oppose sanely, if not scientifically. There is no social club.

@Cal: You are neither "sanely" or "scientifically" opposing anything. It is not scientific to squeeze something with infinite dimensions (AWT) into something with proven finite dimensions (our Universe).

If you'd have ever had a course in Thermodynamics, you would understand energy systems can function only inside a closed boundary, our Universe is that energy system. Just because we're unable to see the boundaries with present day optics, doesn't give anyone license to declare they don't exist, but that's what you'd like for us to believe.

We know the Universe is finite because we can measure the total strength of its' gravitational field, thereby calculating its total mass, and it isn't infinity or gravity would be immeasurable.

Graeme

not rated yet Feb 03, 2012

Why Hajdukovic's theory will fail is that gravitational interaction at the small scale between virtual particles will be quantitised, the same as other energy exchanges. The probabilty of any kind of interaction is so small that gravitions would not be produced this way. The energy of interaction due to gravity between two particles is so small that the frequency would be extremely low 10 E-40 or lower. The wavelength would be huge exceeding the size of the universe, with a corresponding low chance of interaction with the particle.

However there is a possibility that space is full of gravitational waves at high frequencies that cannot be observed. Any created close to the big bang would have energy comparable to the CMB, and not make up much missing mass at all. Perhaps there are other ways to produce them. If space is foamy like at quantum scales then I agree there would be too much energy tied up in it, so this option can be ruled out. But may be there is an element of truth.

rawa1

1 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2012

there is a possibility that space is full of gravitational waves at high frequencies that cannot be observed.

In AWT these waves are observable easily as a CMBR noise. This noise is not formed with these waves itself, because these waves are essentially hyperdimensional - it's rather their projection into our space-time in similar way, like the underwater sound waves manifest itself at the water surface.
http://aetherwave...ves.html

rawa1

1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012

It is not scientific to squeeze something with infinite dimensions (AWT) into something with proven finite dimensions (our Universe).

AWT is not dependent on the hyperdimensional models, the concept of nested particle fluctuations in 3D space covers them too. But you should realize, the hyperdimensional description is required for the sake of consistency. The pure empty vacuum indeed represents (nearly) pure 3D space - but what about gravitational lens? Is it still "just 3D object" after then? And what about more dense objects composed of nested particle systems? These are all hyper-dimensional objects, where the Lorentz symmetry is broken heavily and the forces doesn't follow inverse square law at all. http://aetherwave...ons.html Or do you believe the ideal solid sphere is 3D object from this perspective? It's at least 256-dimensional object.

Shinichi D_

1 / 5 (2) Feb 03, 2012

Back on topic: If the two halves of these particle-antiparticle pairs repell each other, because of opposite gravitational charge, then one such pair is supposed to be gravitationaly "neutral" right? In spatial voids the number of virtual particles and antiparticles supposed to be roughly the same. All the antigravity of antiparticles would be neutralised, "absorbed" by their normal pair.
The two halves of the pair may repell each other, but two (or more) such pairs would neither repell other pairs, nor normal visible matter. Not because of antigravity anyway.
And even if that would be the case, the expansion should then occur around the edges of the voids, where they interact with the filaments of normal matter, and not generaly throughout the voids.

ThanderMAX

Feb 03, 2012

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

rawa1

1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012

two halves of the pair may repel each other, but two (or more) such pairs would neither repel other pairs, nor normal visible matter. Not because of antigravity anyway

In AWT the gravity is the result of gravitational shielding of massive bodies with superluminal gravitational waves (which manifest with CMBR noise). This mechanism is very similar to ancient Le-Sage theory of gravity, but its essentially equivalent to Casimir force mechanism, which is considering the shielding of virtual photons instead. This mechanism can be easily modelled at the water surface, on which two balls are floating. After then the shielding of Brownian noise occurs both at the water surface (Casimir force), both beneath the water surface (LeSage gravity force).
Because the density fluctuations of Brownian noise always manifest itself like the mixture of more and less dense places with positive and negative curvature of water surface, the Hajdukovic model has a close connection to LeSage theory too.

rawa1

1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012

The spreading of surface ripples is dispersed with underwater density fluctuations in such a way, their wavelength decreases with distance from both source, both observer. This dispersion is the source of the Hubble red shift in AWT. http://people.rit...4565.jpg In this model the space-time is fixed and wavelength of light is variable. But because the speed of ripples increases during their dispersion (the underwater waves are faster, than the surface ones), the acceleration of wave speed can be interpreted like the collapse of space at distance. Therefore for observer at the water surface the neighbouring space always appears collapsing with increasing distance, i.e. expanding with proximity and "age". What is important with respect to Hajdukovic theory, this dispersion is cause with density fluctuations of underwater and it's essentially of nonlinear nature, because the small wavelength waves disperse more, than the long wavelength ones.

rawa1

1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012

If you'll observe the spreading of surface ripples carefully, the accelerated dispersion with distance leads into formation of sharp "event horizon", behind which no surface wave can penetrate. This behaviour corresponds the particle horizon of Big bang theory. The steeply decreased wavelength at its proximity corresponds the "inflation phase" of Big Bang theory. So we can model whole contemporary L-CDM cosmology just with dispersion of ripples at the water surface. The water surface models differs from mainstream cosmology in the aspect of relativeness: the very distant observers will not live in singularity: their part of universe will appear essentially in the same way, like this ours one - but they will observe us strongly red-shifted and living near singularity too. In this way, the history of Universe is relative and observer dependent.

Shinichi D_

2 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012

I know im going to get like thousand 1-s, but i have to do it. What if gravity is not a fundamental force at all? It's the oddball of the four, and even if we find the missing 95% (or so) its still like million, billion times weaker then the others.
What if there is just quantum field and it's producing phenomena we refer to as gravity, dark energy, dark matter?

antialias_physorg

5 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2012

What if gravity is not a fundamental force at all?

It's a force. It has an effect. Whether it is fundamental (i.e. whether it is independent of all other forces or cannot be broken down further into partial forces) is dubious. There seem to be no truly independent 'parts' to this universe - this is why so many people are looking at ways to unify the forces we know of.

its still like million, billion times weaker then the others.

36 orders of magnitude. Which is a bit more than a million billion (it's a million million million million million million...or a billon billion billion billion ....take your pick)

However, there seems to be no reason why the dfference in magnitude between force types should be small (or of any one particular magnitude)

rawa1

1 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2012

What if gravity is not a fundamental force at all?

In AWT the gravity is many of shielding forces which do apply in three dimensions, and the general shielding mechanism corresponds the concept of supergravity of GUT theory. No gravity, no EM force can exist at GUT limit, so that none of these forces can be considered more fundamental, than the another one. But the question isn't whether the gravity is fundamental force or not, but what you can deduce from it. Shall we consider more fundamental the environment, or rather its waves or rather the dispersive or shielding mechanism in which they're spreading trough it? In AWT they're all aspects of the same model and they cannot be considered/handled separately. The world without EM interaction or Casimir force would appear as strange, as the Universe without gravity.

Benni

1 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2012

In AWT the gravity is the result of gravitational shielding of massive bodies with superluminal gravitational waves

Where in the Universe (the one we presently live in) has anything been measured moving at a speed that is "superluminal"? How was that mesurement made?

Let me caution you, you's better be good with your answer because I already have a comeback prepared.

rawa1

1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012

[Where in the Universe .. has anything been measured moving at a speed that is "superluminal"

For example the quantum entanglement has been observed as superluminal, the quantum tunneling of photons has been observed as superluminal.
http://www.nature...038.html

http://www.physik...20Vanner

ccr5Delta32

5 / 5 (1) Feb 03, 2012

It's NOT my idea, nor I'm I not defending this guys theory at all. I pointing out to you now for the 3rd time that the above article speaks of "negative gravitational charge", not negative gravitational mass.

I've noticed that also and to me the words negative gravitational charge are just that three words . It makes sense in a sentence like "The Pink Elephant " does ,at least there's a bar with that name.
The thing is ,the phrase "gravitational charge" is more or less assumed like an intuition .While I think it's fun to play with ideas is there any bases such a phrase ?
I seek the counsel of the community here . TX

GSwift7

2.6 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2012

to Noumenon:

Again, from Villata's web site,.. it is stated explicitly, "Villata poses a new theory which assumes that both matter and antimatter have positive mass and energy density

He can say that as many times as he likes, but it violates the equivalency principle, along with several other basic tenates of modern theory. I believe the first law of thermodynamics is another one he can't get past, but the reason for that is a little tricky. The reasoning is like this: If he says that both matter and anti-matter both have positive mass, but opposite sign of gravity, then the matter will be attracted to the antimatter, but the antimatter will be driven away from the matter. You end up with a perpetual motion machine where the matter and antimatter pair will self-accelerate in the direction of the antimatter forever. If you hooked them both up to a wheel, you would have unlimited energy. That violates the first law of thermodynamics. Impossible.

rawa1

1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012

@ccr5Delta32, GSwift7 As I explained above, the gravitational charge is not a force in which massive body responds to the gradient of curvature of space-time, but to the gradient of gravitational potential. http://www.aether...arge.gif http://redshift.v...3str.pdf This gradient is always negative in classical general relativity theory.

ccr5Delta32

not rated yet Feb 03, 2012

@rawa1 I have no idea why you addressed your comment to me .seriously I don't and I don't and I don't mean anything by it other than ,

rawa1

1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012

You told

to me the words negative gravitational charge are just that three words

which implies, this concept has no physical meaning for you. So I'm providing some.

Benni

1 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2012

[Where in the Universe .. has anything been measured moving at a speed that is "superluminal"
For example the quantum entanglement has been observed as superluminal, the quantum tunneling of photons has been observed as superluminal.
http://www.nature...038.html

All right, so let's stick to the subject at hand: GRAVITY

Noumenon

1 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2012

@GSwift7, I agree there are valid reasons for questioning the guys ideas,... but don't continue to say over and over, that he's speaking of 'negative gravitational mass', when he makes it quite clear he assumes both matter and anti-matter has positive mass/energy. IOW, in his theory "negative gravitational mass" != "negative gravitational charge".

antialias_physorg

5 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2012

For example the quantum entanglement has been observed as superluminal,

No. No information is transmitted in quantum entanglement. Not superluminal nor subluminal. Read up on it.

rawa1

1 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2012

No. No information is transmitted in quantum entanglement.

OK, just force the Nature to retract its headline and I'll believe you.

Read up on it

Done. We set a lower bound for the speed of quantum information in this (CMBR) frame at 2×104c.

antialias_physorg

5 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012

*Sigh* I've said it before. You still need to look up what information is.

There's no real point in arguing with you until you get some basic scientific education. And the definition of information is THE most basic part which all other sciences rely on.

Callippo

1 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2012

You still need to look up what information is.

You didn't it specified it before. Frankly, whole the concept of information in physics is an abstract BS promoted with theorists, who have no idea about real physics. The information concept is not connected to any measurable quantity (mass, energy, frequency, whatever), so it's not testable at all in the same way, like every physical theory based on it. We should rather talk about transfer of some energy (albeit minute) with superluminal speed.

MaxwellsDemon

5 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2012

@ccrDelta32

The thing is ,the phrase "gravitational charge" is more or less assumed like an intuition .While I think it's fun to play with ideas is there any bases such a phrase ?

Yes, there is a perfectly valid theoretical basis for the phrase "gravitational charge": gravitomagnetism (aka the Lense-Thirring effect aka frame dragging). In the weak field limit a body in motion exhibits secondary field characteristics which can be mathematically expressed *precisely analogous to a moving electrical charge*, except with a sign inversion on the force vectors (i.e. like gravitational charges attract, not repel). This means that there are valid gravitational analogues to electromagnetic induction, and the phrase "gravitational charge" is as supportable as the phrase "electrical charge".

MaxwellsDemon

5 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2012

@GSwift7

it violates the equivalency principle, along with several other basic tenates of modern theory

Actually, based on our current data set, it's perfectly possible that "the equivalence principle" may require a slight edit like this: inertial mass is equivalent to the [absolute] magnitude of the gravitational mass of a body.

In fact -all- of your arguments against this concept are based on the same theoretical underpinnings that this theory is challenging, so your argument is circular. None of the current -data- refutes the idea that antimatter may gravitationally oppose ordinary matter. Also, this proposed concept does not violate any of the "basic tenets" of modern physics (because even the concept of "exotic matter" that you keep incorrectly equating to this proposal preserves all of the customary conservation laws, see R. Forward, H. Bondi).

So the only truly scientific (skeptical) position to take is to wait for the experimental evidence to settle the question

Callippo

1 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2012

In the weak field limit a body in motion exhibits secondary field characteristics which can be mathematically expressed

You're right, but the gravitational charge is not only about body in motion, i.e. gravitomagnetic effect. The curvature of gravitational field should have it's own energy content in the same way, like the curvature of space-time itself (in AWT we are living in gradient driven reality, when every change in time or space has its own energy and mass content assigned). In mass-energy equivalence this energy field introduces a weak secondary field which acts like sparsely divided mass and it acts against original gravitational field at the case of positive gradient of gravitational potential (i.e. like cold dark matter). This static charge can be deduced from omnidirectional space-time expansion too: the gravity field of massive body induces a weak acceleration under such a circumstances,whose amplitude is proportional to product of speed of light and Hubble constant

Callippo

1 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2012

In brief, the omnidirectional space-time expansion induced with quantum noise of vacuum implies a weak gravitomagnetic effects even for stationary bodies. In dual symmetric way the static potential field can be deduced from quantum mechanics. Classical quantum mechanics doesn't recognize gravitational field, because the Schrodinger wave solution implies, the wave packet of every free particle would decay and dissolve into infinity. The tiny quantum fluctuations of vacuum violate this solution though, because they induce a subtle neverending motion for every particle, due to which the deBroglie wave is formed even around objects, which are macroscopically at rest.
Note that gravitational charge induced with quantum noise in vacuum is selfrepulsive, it's formed AROUND massive bodies and it prohibits their ultimate gravitational collapse into singularities in the same way, like the quantum noise prohibits the expansion of quantum wave packets into infinity.

Foolish1

5 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2012

Maybe I don't understand what "negative gravity" means. If the gravity wells created by the energy density of mater and anti-mater cancel the end result is not repulsion at all but mearly subtracing rather than adding the effects of each others gravity wells. The best you can get out of that arrangement is no net attraction. If one well is bigger than the other the difference is the effective attractive gravity.

Foolish1

not rated yet Feb 05, 2012

If "negative gravity" means gravity from each is mutually repulsive what prevents the following thought expertiment from showing energy is not conserved under this theory?

A magic sphere with a barrier preventing any energy from escaping including blackbody radiation. Within the sphere
anti-matter is created. As a result the "weight" of the sphere decreases. Once anti-matter container is full the "lighter" sphere is then rolled up a hill.

Once at the top of the hill the magnetic container is switched off converting matter to energy. The sphere is then rolled back down the hill where it origionally started out. While the "mass" of the sphere never changed (e=mc^2) its "weight" did resulting in a change of potential energy atop the hill. What happened?

Callippo

1 / 5 (4) Feb 05, 2012

A magic sphere with a barrier preventing any energy from escaping including blackbody radiation

In AWT the neutrinos of energy between CMBR photons and electrons can pass trough event horizon freely. It can even have measurable effects - they're source of ejections of dark matter across galaxy and they could be one of possible sources of global warming, as they're affecting the speed of radioactive decay and geothermal equilibrium of Earth's oceans and mantle.

Noumenon

1 / 5 (4) Feb 05, 2012

If "negative gravity" means gravity from each is mutually repulsive what prevents the following thought expertiment from showing energy is not conserved under this theory?

A magic sphere with a barrier preventing any energy from escaping including blackbody radiation. Within the sphere
anti-matter is created. As a result the "weight" of the sphere decreases. Once anti-matter container is full the "lighter" sphere is then rolled up a hill.

Once at the top of the hill the magnetic container is switched off converting matter to energy. The sphere is then rolled back down the hill where it origionally started out. While the "mass" of the sphere never changed (e=mc^2) its "weight" did resulting in a change of potential energy atop the hill. What happened?

Potential energy for the anti-matter would have to be defined as inversely to the height; 1/h, so creating the anti-matter at the bottom of the hill would be like creating matter at the top of the hill; conserved.

Callippo

1 / 5 (4) Feb 05, 2012

There is some evidence of fifth-force. The objects with high of neutron-proton ratio should exhibit a lower gravity, because neutrons are of slightly positive curvature than protons (something like the antibubbles), they anihilate spontaneously at free state and the do release antineutrinos in nuclear reactions. Such effects will be quite minute though. http://www.npl.wa.../eotwash Only lightweight neutrinos will exhibit a buyoancy in gravity field, all heavier anti-particles will fall down.

Noumenon

1 / 5 (4) Feb 05, 2012

,... oops, Not inversely, I mean negatively to that of matter. Hmmmm? But how would that work?

PoppaJ

Feb 05, 2012

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

GSwift7

2.4 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2012

Potential energy for the anti-matter would have to be defined as inversely to the height; 1/h,

1/h^2

GSwift7

3 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2012

Maxwell:

In fact -all- of your arguments against this concept are based on the same theoretical underpinnings that this theory is challenging, so your argument is circular.

Oh, now I understand. They're proposing an idea with zero observational support, which requires that several key concepts of modern theory be rewritten, and I'm being circular for pointing out that they are crackpots? I've looked at their work and they are using a mathematical trick that I find highly dubious and ignoring the implications in regard to other parts of physical theory. Additionally, as I've pointed out before, observational evidence is really solid in this regard. The implications of what they are suggesting would be observable in particle experiments already carried out. We create and observe antimatter frequently in colliders. It acts exactly as predicted by current theory, and not as it would if this crackpot was right. He's a bigfoot tracker, or a loch ness photographer.

Callippo

1 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2012

I've looked at their work and they are using a mathematical trick that I find highly dubious..

Which one?

we create and observe antimatter frequently in colliders. It acts exactly as predicted by current theory..

Inside of colliders the gravitational effects play no role at all, so they cannot be used for validation or falsification of repulsive gravity. We are only dealing with inertial mass there - the gravitational repulsion or attraction plays no role there at all.

Turritopsis

1 / 5 (3) Feb 06, 2012

GSwift7 is the type that says: if the data don't fit the math, change the data.

I don't mean to be rude GSwift but not only do you not understand, but you also are being very rude in your demeanor. I've tried to explain to you that weight is not measured in particle colliders, energy levels are. From the energy levels we deduce the mass.

To get gravitational info you need to measure the weight.

Read what Maxwell wrote again and send him a pm. He seems to know what he is talking about very well. Maybe he can help you out because you clearly are confused about what data is out there, and why you can't state with any degree of certainty the things you state.

sandler

1 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2012

If outer space is as empty and inert as it initially appears then what causes gravity to dissipate with the distance? It should spread out evenly everywhere just like the light does.. But it can be seen that moon's gravity is much stronger towards the earth than possibly even sun's because it causes tides in the oceans to appear. If I understand what this article says correctly the gravitational waves of space are negatively charged to negate attractive gravitational sources which causes the mass effect.

Callippo

1 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2012

gravitational waves of space are negatively charged to negate attractive gravitational sources

In LeSage theory the gravity is the result of shielding tachyons (gravitational waves), in this sense the gravity is the opposite effect to gravitational wave push.

BTW to say, some wave is "charged" sounds strange for me. Literally every 2nd word connection in your post is used out of its usual context and it manifests incoherent way of thinking. Not to say about factual nonsenses like the "that moon's gravity is much stronger towards the earth". Du you really believe, you could jump higher at the opposite side of Moon?

sandler

1 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2012

Callipo, thank you. In regards to the moon I was trying to illustrate the diminishing effect of the gravity with the distance and moon is much closer than sun so it's in effect heavier. As far as jumping higher there's a glacier in Canada where it's possible. The abandoned LeSage theory is talking about particles, but I was talking about waves with negative freqeuncies like EMW in radio transmitters. But overall you right it doesn't make sense.

Turritopsis

3 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2012

If outer space is as empty and inert as it initially appears then what causes gravity to dissipate with the distance?

illustr. 1 cube with a thousand particles inside grows by 1 cube in each direction (3 cubes high from every direction). Now you have 27 cubes with 1000 particles inside the whole available volume - means about 37 individual particles inside each individual cube.

As distance increases dispersion takes place.

Gravity works the same way. As distance increases gravitational energy disperses. The further away you get from an object the less gravitational energy is available in each cube of space.

If you create a sphere of 1cm thickness at a uniform distance from Earth within that sphere the total gravitational energy is the same no matter what that distance is. The sphere radius is not significant when tabulating the total gravitational energy..

Turritopsis

1 / 5 (1) Feb 07, 2012

Du you really believe, you could jump higher at the opposite side of Moon?

Actually you can jump higher on the closer side than you can on the farside. Just like the moon pulls the water causing tides, so does earth pull on the moon. Earths gravity pulls you further off the moon when you jump on the close side, when you jump on the far side the Earth actually pulls you as well making your jump shorter. (assuming equal force is exerted in the jump phase)

Turritopsis

1 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2012

Negative and positive gravitational charge can be viewed in this way:

A massive body emits gravitational energy into space.

This means space is attracting the gravitational energy of that massive body.

Space is receiving gravitational energy a massive body radiates therefore space has antigravitational properties. A massive body radiates gravity into surrounding space, surrounding space antiradiates gravitational energy at the massive body.

Without connecting space information cannot travel from one object to another, therefore space attracts energy from objects. Space is a conduit from one point to another. Space pulls information from the object it surrounds.

If there were no space a body would have nothing to radiate electromagnetic energy into, therefore space is antielectromagnetic.

If there were no space a body would have nothing to radiate gravitational energy into, therefore space is antigravitic.

Turritopsis

1 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2012

On another topic,

Antimatter may have inversed forces to that of matter. Antimatter may act exactly opposite when subjected to a matter dominant field.

If antimatter is emitting antigravity towards matter then the effect felt from matters standpoint is negative antigravity, or just gravity. So antimatter sending antigravity towards matter is received as an increase in gravity from the matters standpoint.

Todecule

not rated yet Feb 07, 2012

@GSwift7 - Can you provide a reference for how we know the mass of anti-matter is non-negative?

From what I can tell, the techniques used to measure mass of antimatter appear to be sign independent. For example, measuring the amount of energy required to change an anti-proton orbital in antiprotonic helium would only measure the absolute value of mass.

Turritopsis

1 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2012

Antimatter emitting antigravity is received by antimatter as an attractive force.

Antimatter repulsing matter causes an increase in pressure upon the matter.

It is possible that antimatter is pushing matter together while the matter is attracting itself. Two opposing forces acting in unison upon each other.

Matter is helping antimatter stay together while antimatter is helping matter stay together.

It is only theory though until experiments on antimatter can take the necessary measurements.

MaxwellsDemon

not rated yet Feb 07, 2012

@GSwift7
A final attempt. A momentary detour to Wonderland should do it.

We begin in the Wonderland universe with two large metal spheres, in a remote region of space. You observe that the spheres appear to be electrically charged, because they're accelerating away from each other, and you know that like charges repel. Note that no conservation laws are being violated, and the momentum and energy add up as long as you account for the potential energy field that's driving the two metal spheres apart.

Then a queer voice crackles in over the intercom:

Those two metal spheres are not electrically charged, actually. You're observing a sphere of beryllium and an equivalent sphere of antiberyllium interacting only through their *baryon charge* field, which you people call gravity. Like baryon charges attract, and unlike repel, it turns out. Go build a spaceship and join us next weekend at Zeta Reticuli D for the biggest blowout since the Big Bang. And BYOB, btw.

Turritopsis

1 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2012

Antimatter is situated centrally within the multiverse the mass is ripping virtual particles apart pulling antimatter in adding mass to the centre blowing matter out into the visible universe adding to its mass.

Our visible universe (matter shell abound antimatter sphere) is ripping virtual particles apart pulling matter in while repelling antimatter away.

(1.Antimatter Sphere 2.matter shell 3.antimatter shell 4.matter shell 5.antimatter shell.....infinity)

Continual growth (addition of energy) without breakage of conservation laws.

Universes stemming from universes.

Turritopsis

1 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2012

The particle antiparticle virtual pair is pulled on from both sides. The Antimatter Side pulls the Antiparticle, the Particle is pulled by the Matter Side.

The boundary, or the meeting point between counter-universes, has a line that sets the universal barrier. When a virtual particle pair finds itself divided by the line the virtual pair gets pulled into reality.

The boundary line breaks the connection of the virtual pair rendering both real in their respective universes.

Both universes grow in size.

Turritopsis

1 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2012

The growing sphere is causing acceleration of expansion of our universe (our shell).

The shell surrounding our shell is also pushing our shell towards the central sphere. (dark matter)

So the antimatter sphere that our shell surrounds is dark energy.

The shells could be separated by as little as a Planck length.

Turritopsis

1 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2012

Another universe could be resting a Planck length away.

A survivable one another universe away.

Crossing 1 border line leaves you in an unsurvivable field (or universe).

Crossing 2 borders places you in a survivable field (universe)

MaxwellsDemon

5 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2012

Here's an excellent page at the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics that offers a succinct overview of on-going research into the gravitational interaction of matter and antimatter:

http://www.mpi-hd...tter.htm

The AEGIS consortium building this experiment (a vastly superior successor to the ATHENA experiment that was too noisy to be decisive) is creating cold antihydrogen atoms and attempting to detect the tiny signal of the gravitational interaction between the atoms and the Earth. It is, of course, an outrageously difficult observation to achieve: forming antihydrogen is dicey enough without having to cool it down before it commits suicide with some enticing atom of ubiquitous matter, but also precisely-controlled conditions must prevail to eliminate any stray influences on the infinitesimal momentum of the antihydrogen.

I think this work is even more exciting than the search for the Higgs particle, honestly.