Bringing balance to the universe: New theory could explain missing 95 percent of the cosmos

This is a really nice paper (very easy to understand, although HIGHLY speculative, of course).

Link here; https://arxiv.org...12.07962

I particularly like the closing sentence of the abstract which says that "the compelling puzzle of the dark Universe may have been due to a simple sign error."

The usual trivial problems:
- This is not the cosmology we live in. It makes a bouncing universe with the wrong topology (AdS instead of approximately dS) and a time varying Hubble constant in the current era.
- This is not the physics we live in. It has creation of particles out of nothing (shades of Hoyle's static universe), and suggest "negative mass" while gravity is unipolar.
- This is insufficient in competition with LCDM. It is explaining a fraction of the dark matter/dark energy effects. So no prediction of seeing the DM peak in the CMB spectra (instead it notes that new phenomena should be seen - why?) or DM lensing.

Nothing to see here; moving on.

although HIGHLY speculative, of course

Yeah. (Seems to be popular, too...I'm having a hard time downloading it).
My initial reaction is: what about (energy) conservation laws? Doesn't that contradict a creation tensor? But maybe once I get it that will be explained.

On the upside: If there is indeed negative mass (and it can be contained and/or manufactured) then an Alcubierre type warp drive might actually be feasible.

taken to its logical conclusion this theory does show the earth actually is flat!

not to mention belief in an all powerful supernatural being seems less ridiculous

the science cult rules, ok

Another nonsensical theory added to the pile.

Another, different take on negative mass and cosmological constant, published in 2005 already.

https://creation....osmology

Its puts an interesting spin on what the researchers in the article call the combination of dark matter and dark energy.

For those who understand the math it makes for an interesting point of discussion. For people like porksnee it will be just another nonsensical theory that s/he doesn't understand.

Have we finally the sea (of negative mass; a key component in the creation of traversable wormholes and Alcubierre drives) in our sights, on which to set sail on our journey through the universe?

I've thought for a long time that there can be no "nothing"; and that black 'holes' are just this clear stuff roiling around and sometimes acting like water draining, or a tornado, not sure about the negativity of it, however I believe it's involved in the perception of gravity. It's gravity I'm not so sure exists as it's described. I think Gravity is the pressure of this stuff, rather than some attractive quality of mass. If planets are the grapes, dark matter is the jello. Only total ignorance can produce theories like mine; Sometimes it's good to start fresh. By the way, is the temperature of a mass thought to affect its gravity?

once it is understood that our common sense notions of space and matter are inverted - it will all fall in
place - space is the reality - matter the phantom. . matter is but a local disrupttion of space. Space is probably colaspsing at half the speed of light while the phantom matter appears to expand. Space synchronizes everything and its behavior is what creates time. Time is a property of the behavior of space.

> Dr. Jamie Farnes from the Oxford e-Research Centre, Department of Engineering Science:

"The outcome seems rather beautiful: dark energy and dark matter can be unified into a single substance, with both effects being simply explainable as positive mass matter surfing on a sea of negative masses."

Just more of the usual wacko stuff brought to you by the purveyors of Pop-Cosmology.

We made up dark matter and dark energy and have never found a single particle or erg of either.

Now we expect to trade our magic matter and energy for a magic fluid which has negative mass, negative gravity and which, when pushed, pushes back.

When may we expect floating airplanes and rockets which need hardly any push to reach escape velocity?

i dunno, you mention the science cult and the accolytes vote you down, its like they don't realise they're in a cult, wtf

Just more of the usual wacko stuff brought to you by the purveyors of Pop-Cosmology.

You start sounding like a true science hipster. Like hipster hate everything too popular in music, you do it to science: "This is just wacko popular science stuff", "I liked this theory before it was so pop" etc

All "energy" actually resides in space itself - the local distortion "matter" is but the interface to that energy.
"Matter" or the local distortion may have inertia because it becomes unbalanced when influenced my other distortions or changes in the ethereal state.

At least they got the repulsion part correct...baby steps in the right direction. Too bad about the mathematical requirement for anything other than a field. Negative fluid matter....LMAO.

"with both effects being simply explainable as positive mass matter surfing on a sea of negative masses"

This is hilarious to anyone who actually works with magnetic fields. Add the word "charge" before mass and replace the masses with fields...as close as the above can get to reality.

Dr. Farnes says: "We now think that both dark matter and dark energy can be unified into a fluid which possesses a type of 'negative gravity," repelling all other material around them.

....because the fact that pretty much all matter in space carries a charge is irrelevant to any kind of repulsion phenomenon. Yeah...that's it.

Responding to the forthcoming barrage from the usual suspects....now we have repulsion in the equation...bye bye gravity math, hello new gravity math...it's a start.

"Einstein famously called the cosmological constant his 'biggest blunder," although modern astrophysical observations prove that it is a real phenomenon. In notes dating back to 1918, Einstein described his cosmological constant, writing that 'a modification of the theory is required such that "empty space" takes the role of gravitating negative masses which are distributed all over the interstellar space." It is therefore possible that Einstein himself predicted a negative-mass-filled universe.

Actually, in 1955 Einstein wrote a book in which he expressed his understanding of the applicable physics at that time, "There can be no energy without a field to bind it". It took the smartest man to live in the 20th century 37 years to figure it out and say it after his 1918 musing mentioned above. Farnes working off what Einstein said in 1918...must have got the advice from Jones....

with a new paper unifying dark matter and dark energy into a single phenomenon: a fluid which possesses 'negative mass."

Seems kind of doubtful since light from everywhere in the cosmos is observed to be red-shifted, not blue...

This is the difference between understanding "physics" and understanding math...therefore thinking you understand physics. I stated a repulsive force was necessary to explain galactic motion. Not one single mainstreamer agreed because the math didn't say it...had a heated exchange with a psycho and a couple of psychos in training. Now here we are with "This astonishing new theory ".....that attraction is not the only "force" governing motion. It is only new to mainstream dogma, hence why suggesting it was received the way it was. So it is nice to see Mainstream theoretical guys taking the first steps to catch up to those who have already recognized this. Too bad their followers still appear to be stuck in the mud....

"Seems kind of doubtful since light from everywhere in the cosmos is observed to be red-shifted, not blue..."

Wow...maybe gravity isn't responsible for that phenomenon. baby step # 2 has been tabled...

Best quote so far from the paper:

Observations clearly indicate that the Universe is not empty.

I didn't understand enough of this to ask a better question:

Have they suggested any practicable way to falsify their notion ?

@torbjorn_b_g_larsson

The usual trivial problems:
- This is not the cosmology we live in. It makes a bouncing universe with the wrong topology (AdS instead of approximately dS) and a time varying Hubble constant in the current era.
- This is not the physics we live in. It has creation of particles out of nothing (shades of Hoyle's static universe), and suggest "negative mass" while gravity is unipolar.
- This is insufficient in competition with LCDM. It is explaining a fraction of the dark matter/dark energy effects. So no prediction of seeing the DM peak in the CMB spectra (instead it notes that new phenomena should be seen - why?) or DM lensing.

Nothing to see here; moving on.

Can you give us some references for these claims please?

"Seems kind of doubtful since light from everywhere in the cosmos is observed to be red-shifted, not blue..."

Wow...maybe gravity isn't responsible for that phenomenon. baby step # 2 has been tabled...

Um, cosmos, as in cosmology, so spacetime expansion; but also the spacetime geometry of general relativity where light is red-shifted climbing out of a gravity well, and also that light would curve away from dark energy regions (and dark matter?) rather than curving around them-- it's not like dark energy and dark matter are the only criteria that have to be satisfied...

Um...so far, we can only manipulate light with a magnetic/electric field. And our only verified physical effect on photons is polarization...again, magnetic field. All other optical effects attributed to "bent spacetime" due to "gravity wells" A) occur in the presence of magnetic fields and B) cannot be verified. Unless you can reference any instance where we experimentally "bent spacetime". You are correct how light "could" behave if the negative gravity fluid was viable, it doesn't. I am just agreeing with the repulsive force modelling as it is blatantly correct, but not due to "negative gravity". As I said they took a baby step in the right direction, now they are standing still facing the right way...they just need a telescope to see how far behind they are.

It seems that I have some trouble with the basics here.
If negative mass is when something, pulled by gravity accelerates in a direction opposite to the direction to the center of the pull /accelerating in a direction opposite to the gradient of the increasing of the field/, but pushed by /the proposed/ antigravity would accelerate towards the "center" /moving in the direction of increasing field gradient/... and if most of the matter, being dark matter, is with negative mass, and predominant field, permeating the Universe is that of antygravity... wouldn't that actually result in a contracting, instead of expanding universe?
And how about the property of actually being "dark"? I mean - nothing in seems to explain why this negative mass matter is completely indifferent to electromagnetism /note that it does not create "antilight" as may properly be expected from "negative energy matter"/.

Our visible universe is in the outflow of a super-supermassive black hole. As ordinary matter falls toward the super-supermassive black hole it evaporates into dark matter. It is the dark matter outflow which pushes the galaxy clusters, causing them to move outward and away from us. The dark matter outflow is dark energy.

The galaxy clusters which have been pushed for longer than we have are accelerating outward and away from us. We are accelerating outward and away from the galaxy clusters which have been pushed for less time than we have. From our perspective most of the galaxy clusters are accelerating away from us.

I didn't understand enough of this to ask a better question:

Have they suggested any practicable way to falsify their notion ?

Here's an easy way: find a mirror image of any galaxy. Sort of like the opposite of an Einstein ring, with the galaxy adjacent (as it appears in the sky) to a region of dark energy but much farther away than that region... finding such a mirror image (even distorted) would support their notion.

Asymmetrical.

Very very slightly asymmetrical.

137, or...0.00729927007299270072992700729927

and thus, unidirectional time, gravity, mass, etc.

With big ass (seeming) energy available on breakdown.

It's not really, it's just separated or torn from the backdrop support structure of the given dimensional bubble.

Like the speed of light, not really a limit but a limit in and of the dimensional bubble.

And when the thing is seen as the bubble of resonance that it is (infinity boundaries on both ends), then you can see enough of the shape of it to curve fit the quantum into the scenario.

One can use the mathematics if they wish but that is not the fundamental, the point of understanding is the fundamental.

Really a fluid ?????
It is incredible as with the adjective "Oxford University" one creates whatever they post. Our theory is more solid, but without the "support" of universities.
Theory of Empty Universe

Oh Boy! A new, imaginatively constructed speculation for all of us to argue over.

The question I have is. If the DM/DE combo produce "Negative" Gravity?

Why are the larger galaxies, in general, spiral shaped? Wouldn't the effect of NG from a surrounding sphere of DM pushing the on the structures from all directions, result in spherical galaxies?

And, as t_b_g_l asked. Where is the DM lensing effect?

Other questions I have are. If NG is a product of DM & DE? Centered (anchored?) around galaxies? How could there be any inter-galactic mass, such as gas streamers to be observed?

Many galaxies outer arms consist of extensive gas & dust clouds. Wouldn't the NG have rudely shoved all that low-mass debris deep into the cores of the larger galaxies?

And how would it be even possible for the ancient, low-mass dwarf galaxies to exist as satellites of the larger galaxies?

"Why are the larger galaxies, in general, spiral shaped?"

They are not.

"Creation tensor" is another term for "magic" to make a theory with no real basis work.

@Nomadd

"Creation tensor" is another term for "magic"

The creation tensor is equivalent to the creation operator in the standard model of particle physics ( https://en.wikipe...rd_Model ) when one tries to unify the SM with general relativity.

As an important aspect of quantum mechanics, this "magic" is therefore an integral part of the theory that made possible the very technology you are using to make your posts..

So, what is your definition of magic?

Is it magic if it can be clearly seen to work?

One area the paper does not cover, as others have noted, is gravitational lensing. This idea is incomplete without addressing this. While lensing studies are invoked, the actual lensing observed is not addressed.

It's an interesting toy model. But I'll wait to see what the general astrophysics and relativity communities have to say.

Negative Mass

Tis the season of good will to all theories

Scientists at the University of Oxford with a paper unifying dark matter and dark energy as a fluid possessing negative mass push a negative mass would accelerate towards you

Flubber, Professor Philip Brainard of Medfield College developing a new energy source to raise money saving college closure
So in this festive spirit
Flubber is not as farfetched as Negative mass
as negative mass is the energy source Flubber clearly was not
with negative mass Elon Musk
can fulfill his dream
as with his negative mass
he can project his space transporter at mars
while his negative mass is projecting human Martians
in their space transporters back in time for Christmas turkey
Well that is the theory, it just needs Elon Musk and tinker bells magic fairy dust
With Elon Musk as the starring role in a multi-billion Christmas box office hit
"Negative Mass"
And we won't need Tinkerbelle's magic fairy dust

So in great void are we planing to have anti-gravity singularity where time->~? Plus why "If you were to push a negative mass, it would accelerate towards you"? If it has negative gravitational mass it should accelerate exactly opposite way until it reach velocity-> c and in result we should have 2 separate universes one with positive mass and one with negative. If it has only negative kinetic mass then it should resist any movement in space

Good Point

DDayanov> So in great void are we planing to have anti-gravity singularity where time->~? Plus why "If you were to push a negative mass, it would accelerate towards you"? If it has negative gravitational mass it should accelerate exactly opposite way until it reach velocity-> c and in result we should have 2 separate universes one with positive mass and one with negative. If it has only negative kinetic mass then it should resist any movement in space

Mass already accelerates towards us
We've had way too much Christmas spirit
Negative Mass should repel mass away from us!

This is hilarious to anyone who actually works with magnetic fields.

The transcranial magnetic stimulation you've received does not qualify you as someone who "works with magnetic fields."

The only thing that's hilarious is that a new theory comes out and you feel validated as a genius that is so much smarter than everyone else. Quit eating those pills, egotist.

"Why are the larger galaxies, in general, spiral shaped?"

They are not.

Elliptical galaxies make up 2/3 of the mass of the universe, and most are far bigger than the spiral Andromeda or MW, 50 to 500 times larger.

I always figured that old Albert divided by zero somewhere, but this new theory would validate Sr Alcubierre. One day there will be a statue to him, first in his home nation, Mexico, in Mexico City D.F. , just like there was one to the inventor of Star Trek's warp drive, Zephram Cochran.

This theory should lead to advances in how to create and use this fluid for star travel. We have had many visitations throughout history as evidence all over the world in plain sight shows. Only a cloistered baptist with a basket over his head literally and figuratively would soak his head in wet concrete and let it set to be able to lie and deny this obvious fact.... Oh! Yes, and he would have to be a white republican #PeeBrain ,too.

On the other hand, time is not an intrinsic property of a reference frame, because our orbiting satellites experience time changes due to grav induced frame dragging by the earth's mass in proximity. This should mean the affected satellites would be out of our reference frame and become invisible to us like the scenes in the movie 'Langoliers'...like almost in another dimension. But because we CAN send time sync signals TO those sats AND recieve data FROM those satellites means that radio can cross time barriers.....but how? It is in a small scale like we could talk to intelligent dinos, Troodons, if they ever existed, over a gap of eons of time. In for a penny then in for a pound. Thought experiment that maybe says that frame dragging is flawed.

Thanks pepe, for correcting my assumption. But still? My question still applies, even for elliptical galaxies. Why hasn't the DM/DE combo NG not pressed them into spheres?

Plus, as with spirals, elliptical galaxies have streamers of gas & dust flowing outbound,
In addition to satellite dwarf galaxies?

& how many of those ellipticals are actually spiral galaxies observed from an inconvenient POV?

Especially since many of the larger galaxies, both spiral & elliptical are mergers through collisions & cannibalizing their neighbors.

A future example is the passionately torrid, flamboyant dancing predicted between our Milky Way & the Andromeda Galaxy.

How would that event be possible? Or any other collisions & mergers between Cosmic bodies?

Wouldn't the speculated DM/DE Negative Gravity effect prevent any of those occurring?
& that same NG effect should prevent all the ejected material we see from those orgies of starstuff?

"The transcranial magnetic stimulation you've received does not qualify you as someone who "works with magnetic fields."

The only thing that's hilarious is that a new theory comes out and you feel validated as a genius that is so much smarter than everyone else. Quit eating those pills, egotist."

Awww....psycho in training gonna cry ? I am sure Jones will give you a big hug and kiss on the forehead.

As far as ego, I mentioned in several threads guys like you would have to shutter yours given the direction cosmology must go and where it will leave those who want to stick to dogma, and comment as though you are superior to those questioning it. So yeah, if you didn't like that taste of my ego, you might want to try not to be an asshole like with the above comment.

The whole "bu bu bu dark energy is pushing everything away from us" is a bunch of malarkey. It doesn't even make no sense. It's not like planet earf is in the centre of the universe or nothin. How that can even be? Nah, what whitey never understood is that nothing aint moving away from us. What we be observing is spacetime curving away from us the more far we be looking into space. That why the red shift be like it do. Nothing to do wit anything moving away, acceleratin' or none of dat nonsense.

Especially since many of the larger galaxies, both spiral & elliptical are mergers through collisions & cannibalizing their neighbors.

A future example is the passionately torrid, flamboyant dancing predicted between our Milky Way & the Andromeda Galaxy.

How would that event be possible? Or any other collisions & mergers between Cosmic bodies?

.......and certainly not explainable by an EXPANDING UNIVERSE is it?

A Model of Negative Mass
http://www.sjsu.e...tive.htm

really hard to understand for a layman - I thought a "fluid" was matter, visible or otherwise.

"This astonishing new theory may also prove right a prediction that Einstein made 100 years ago."

It's amazing how every possible outcome appears to stem from a correct prediction Einstein made a century ago. Refute one of Einstein's predictions and another one takes its place.

LOL

Good new theory should not only predict already observed things, but should predict something new, unknown until now.

This theory fails to fit into all existing observations and fails to predicts something very specific and different, which could be confirmed.

On the other hand it is positive trend, that something refreshingly new and controversial makes it through mainstream censorship.

oh deer benni, as usual, you are totally wrong & factually incompetent.

The expanding universe is an effect of Space/Time. Piddling little splots of matter such as colliding super-galaxies are local & temporary events of gravitational attraction.

The expanding universe is an effect of Space/Time. Piddling little splots of matter such as colliding super-galaxies are local & temporary events of gravitational attraction.

Cosmic Psycho-babble to you, that "colliding super-galaxies are local & temporary events", if they're so "local", why is it they can be viewed as far away as 13 billion light years? Certainly 13 billion light years IS NOT LOCAL to Andromeda & MW, that's the entirety of the observable Universe. And "tempoary", what does that mean in your psycho-babble world of Pop-Cosmology?

Incidentally, to the title of the article, this is not a "theory." It is a hypothesis, since a conjecture has been advanced and means of testing it have as well.

Having reviewed the papers a few times each, I find this plausible but not compelling. One major mark against it is that the author doesn't seem to realize that negative mass popping out of nowhere violates conservation of mass/energy- which need not only be for positive, but also for (putative) negative mass as well. It's a bold hypothesis, and well supported, but it has at least two problems (both unacknowledged by its creator) that seem fatal unless some explanation can be discovered: violation of mass/energy conservation and gravitational lensing. We'll see if the author or others can clear these up, and what other defects I might have missed might be advanced by the cosmology and relativity communities.

I think gravity reverses and becomes repulsive at approximately 1.5 million light years. It becomes more and more strongly repulsive, reaches a peak, and then decreases trailing off to zero.

This does away both with dark matter and also dark energy. It explains why most galaxies are accelerating away from each other.

It also explains gravitational rotational rates. Galaxies are pushing against each other keeping outer stars in a faster than expected orbit. You may read the justification for this theory here, along with responses to objections at the bottom:
https://www.reddi...tter_is/
General Relativity must be adjusted such that we keep time dilation, BUT ditch curved or dilated space. I.e. we should work with flat, 3D , Euclidean space + time dilation. I explain about this in the notes at the bottom of the article.

If the proposed "fluid" projecting a "negative gravity" exists throughout the entirety of space/time, then the negative gravity fluid halo surrounding a galaxy would be largely or totally countered by the negative gravity fluid that logically would also extend throughout the interior of the galaxy-- therefore the galaxy would still not exhibit the gravitational cohesion we observe. Eliminating the repelling fluid from the interior of galaxies would seem to be a mathematical gambit to force a somewhat workable cosmological theory. Although we need new thinking on this subject, this almost-universal repelling "fluid" seems like a lot to swallow.

According to Feynman lectures from 1960's the counterpart of gravitational energy of total mass M in 3-D space is its rest energy MC^2. This energy balance at BB was extended to one simple 'energy balance field equation' by Dr. Suntola in books, papers and annual seminars since 1995 by correcting a series of GR/QM flaws. This enabled his Dynamic Universe system to become valid for unbiased cosmic modeling while agreeing also with GR/QM predictions in locally validated systems within 18 decimals. The 1998 SN1a data of intergalactic distances could be explained as well or better than the flawed GR based standard model - without any auxiliary 'epicycle' parameters such as DE/DM densities of cosmological constant. The unnecessary 'negative mass' idea is today an epicycle correction to the Nobel rewarded DE epicycle - in hopes of additional Nobel mistakes in recent years!?

Phlogiston?

so what is the explanation for van de walls force?

The paper is worth the read. It really opens possibilities for a whole new class of thoughts. For example, if the vast voids of space are not empty, *zero* mass, but negative mass space/time. This is going to be fun to think about for the next few weeks.

If the mathematics makes accurate predictions then it's worthwhile regardless of what it actually means physically or philosophically.

Anyone with more knowledge want to comment on how dr. Farnes calculates the first acoustic peak in the CMB?

Is he fudging it or does the theory really produce an answer in the ball park with observations?

@Ojorf, he claims it's not necessary. Section 4.2.

To be entirely fair, he develops various scenarios into possible explanations but ends not only by saying he didn't really consider them and they're follow-up work, but by reiterating his statement that it's not really necessary. It would appear you have found another defect in the paper. Well done sir.

Now, all of these defects may disappear; but if a bunch of folks on a relatively obscure Internet site can spot this many, how many will expert astrophysicists and relativists spot? I'd watch Sabine Hossenfelder's site, Backreaction. If she posts something I will try to remember to link it here.

The part of section 4.2, where he takes the local universe to be flat and considers the effect of negative masses on the location of the CMB peaks.
He says in a negative mass universe at z=1100 an astrophysical object would have an observed angular size 169 times less than in LCDM. (Eq 30)
He then carries on, calculates the sound horizon and just after Eq 33, concludes that instead of a discrepancy of a factor of 169 there is substantial cancellation between the larger geometrical term and the larger sound horizon, so that within a factor of approximately 2 it predicts the location of the first CMB peak and my be consistent with observations.

Yep, @Ojorf, that's how I read it too. There might be a patch for this. But only time will tell.

so what is the explanation for van de walls force?

It's the residual force of the EM force acting between electrons and nuclei of atoms. You have to add it all up. This has been known for over a hundred years.

idea of NEGATIVE MASS is pure nonsense https://www.neuro...iew/1855

Defying gravity

Gravity defies Newton law of equal and opposite reaction
The earth attracts the moon as there is no reaction on the earth
The moon attracts the earth and there is no reaction on the moon
Or in the words of that infamous sage
Quasi-neutral
Gravity is quasi-neutral
The equal and opposite reaction
Is the total reaction of both earth and moon
But interesting all the same as gravity has an Achilles heel
In this Achilles heel is the magic of gravity
Defying Gravity

If the mathematics makes accurate predictions then it's worthwhile regardless of what it actually means physically or philosophically.

What did you say?

@Granville, as far as not affecting the Earth, are you forgetting our tides? They are most certainly an effect from Luna. Likewise Luna gets tidal quakes in it's gentle rocking.

The paper is worth the read. It really opens possibilities for a whole new class of thoughts. For example, if the vast voids of space are not empty, *zero* mass, but negative mass space/time. This is going to be fun to think about for the next few weeks.

.....only if you're into Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble.

Well Benni, definitely not worth it for you to read, that I agree with, for obvious reasons.

What did I say in another thread? Any time Benni has no argument, he responds with "Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble".

When he does that you know you have him, it's his way of admitting he has no clue what's going on.

@Ojorf

What did I say in another thread? Any time Benni has no argument, he responds with "Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble".

When he does that you know you have him, it's his way of admitting he has no clue what's going on.

well, that explains why he uses it so often

of course, some other well-known oft-used phrases he uses to show he has no clue:

differential equations
nuclear engineer
relativity (or Einstein)
thermodynamics
entropy

ahh benni my deer, Again you fail to impress us with your cultist whining.

benni my boy, if your pathetically limited imagination is incapable of encompassing the reality of the Cosmos? You should stop reading this.

I consider a Space of a hundred billion parsecs radius to be "Local".

I consider a Span of Time of a trillion years to be "Temporary".

What did I say in another thread? Any time Benni has no argument, he responds with "Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble".
When he does that you know you have him, it's his way of admitting he has no clue what's going on.

Does he ever have an argument? I've never seen him contribute anything of value to this website. Benni, like redpill and a few others, comes to comment on every article about how smart they are, and how unlike everyone else, they've discovered the answers to the universe (without any sort of evidence mind you.) Decades of loneliness will do wonders to a man's psyche.

Whoops! Got cut off.

The remainder of my Theory of Stupid Design ....

..., & then? At some interminable boredom point of Universal exhaustion. It all decays back to an infinitely, eternal Chaos of stochastic Gravitons.

Until, at some indeterminate circumstances & implausible confusions, triggering another Big Bang.

Hey, what can I tell you? Accidents happen!

Defying gravity

Steelwolf> as far as not affecting the Earth are you forgetting our tides They are most certainly an effect from Luna Likewise Luna gets tidal quakes in gentle rocking

The sea on the earth is attracted by the sun and moon
where high tides when gravity joins forces the sun and moon are in line
pulling the sea away from the earth
where the same rule applies
the moon attracts the sea and there is no reaction on the moon
as the earth attract the sea towards the centre of earth, there is no reaction on the earth
The earth is Defying gravity
Keep working on this theme Steelwolf
As there is magic in this theme
Sir Isaac Newton missed Defying gravity in his rush to publish his laws of motion and gravity
Steelwolf
a way of condensing mass
it will attract space ships
on closet approach
decompress the mass
the spaceship will continue its velocity
mass attracting spaceships remains fixed in space
there is no reaction
Defying gravity

The remainder of my Theory of Stupid Design ....

..., & then? At some interminable boredom point of Universal exhaustion. It all decays back to an infinitely, eternal Chaos of stochastic Gravitons.

Until, at some indeterminate circumstances & implausible confusions, triggering another Big Bang.

Hey, what can I tell you? Accidents happen!

........and this additional utterance of Pop-Cosmology Psycho-babble is an accident?

Why benni my boy. Don't you recognize your own "accidental" "pop"?

Why benni my boy. Don't you recognize your own "accidental" "pop"?

Don'tcha just love the way I coin new descriptors that creates so much ire among the overaged Trekkie crowd living here? What a hoot it is, watching so much descent into the foul mouthed name calling from this same trolling gaggle of goofs day after day.

What about this idea which is related to this discussion thread. I have changed the dark matter/energy/fluid to the word "medium" to mean unknown "material" as I think it is more appropriate to what I am going to say.

If you take the Universe as being full of matter and this medium (dark energy/matter) my idea is that the medium would be required in order to transfer field information. How could you possibly transfer gravitons or photons if there was no medium in which to transfer that information. It must be a way of exchanging information. For matter to work with gravity and EM field information the rest of the Universe must be a medium in which to transfer that information. That medium must be at a constant "viscosity" otherwise there would be patches where no field information could be transferred. That means that as the Universe expands there must be enough of that medium coming into the Universe to fill the gap that is left as the Universe expands.
(1/3)

The Universe must have an edge to it as there is no medium there for the field information to be transferred. Also as the medium and matter do not occupy the same space; then as this medium is "pumped" into the Universe it must force the matter further outwards at the rate of expansion of the pressure of that medium being pumped into the Universe. And as the Universe gets bigger the outer edge is always expanding meaning that in order to maintain the viscosity of the medium the size of the medium entering the Universe is directly proportional to the size of the edge of the Universe. What is controlling the force of that pressure is unknown but that is what is controlling the rate at which the Universe is expanding. That medium must be everywhere including in our solar system and obviously as soon as matter moves the medium must fill its place. Without the pressure of the medium the gaps would not be filled as matter moved.
(2/3)

However as matter moves inside the Universe due to gravitation and centrifugal forces the pressure of the medium would have some effect on the speed and direction of the clumps of matter moving through the Universe.

Strange thought, but if the medium being forced into the Universe like a tap flooding a balloon with liquid what happens when the tap is turned off.
(3/3)

If you take the Universe as being full of matter and this medium (dark energy/matter) my idea is that the medium would be required in order to transfer field information. How could you possibly transfer gravitons or photons if there was no medium in which to transfer that information.

You make this claim without any evidence. Where is your evidence? Why would any medium be required? If I shoot a gun, is a medium required for the bullet to travel through the air and hit its target? In the case of a bullet, any medium only inhibits the bullet's travel.

So I used the base of a wine glass as you would to illustrate the spacetime curvature of a gravitational lens but I inverted it to show that there's a mirror image with an adjacent-in-the-sky alignment. There are actually three distinct (tho distorted) mirror images. This is an experiment that's fairly safe to try at home. I tried to find a mirror image using the base of the glass normally, as with a standard gravitational lens, and couldn't find one. I uploaded a picture where I used a "sample galaxy" with a center that has a good asymmetry in shape and color to highlight the mirroring aspect of spacetime curved in the opposite direction of normal, "positive" gravity: Illustration of Anti-gravitational Lens

Sabine Hossenfelder has commented on Backreaction.

http://backreacti...not.html

I have not yet read the body. Others may wish to.

Defying Gravity in Negative Mass

phys.org> unifying dark matter and dark energy into a single phenomenon: a fluid which possesses 'negative mass." If you were to push a negative mass, it would accelerate towards you

In negative mass
in acceleration of force
as explicitly
if we
were
to push on negative mass
as we are comprised
of
Positive mass
implies
Positive and negative in acceleration of force
Produce negative acceleration
and so
by
scientific conclusion
Negative mass and negative mass in acceleration of force
Give positive acceleration
and
so the same in gravity
Positive gravitational mass in interaction of negative gravitational mass
Gives negative repulsive acceleration
Gives negative acceleration
Where as
Negative gravitational mass in interaction of negative gravitational mass
Gives positive attractive acceleration

Hi zz5555,

Thank you for your comments regarding my post.

I just take a passing interest in these things. It was an idea that popped into my head after reading this article, I make no claim or have no evidence (that would take too much time) and I accept it could be a stupid idea. I just threw it out onto this forum as it seemed a simple idea/explanation for people to ponder.

We only think the Universe works the way it should because that is all we know. But the non-locality of variables (i.e. entanglement) is not consistent with the world we experience. There is no god given reason why absolutely everything in the Universe must match our daily experience.

Regards
richard_k

Da Schneib,

Thank you for posting a link to Sabine's blog. It has been an interesting read.

As with all these things you can only prove your theory is right if your model simulates and matches all the known data and the world we experience. Only time will tell who was right and who was wrong.

Regards
richard_k

Sabine Hossenfelder has commented on Backreaction.

http://backreacti...not.html

I have not yet read the body. Others may wish to.

I read her(?) article - and the comments to it.
Wow... there is much to consider (although I tend to like the idea of spin relations to fields)
However, the human propensity to complicate a simple hypothesis, right OR wrong, will
(WAY more often than not), result in a failed theory...
KISS.

@Ojorf

What did I say in another thread? Any time Benni has no argument, he responds with "Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble".

When he does that you know you have him, it's his way of admitting he has no clue what's going on.

well, that explains why he uses it so often

of course, some other well-known oft-used phrases he uses to show he has no clue:

differential equations
nuclear engineer
relativity (or Einstein)
thermodynamics
entropy

Ya forgot Inverse Square Law...

If you take the Universe as being full of matter and this medium (dark energy/matter) my idea is that the medium would be required in order to transfer field information. How could you possibly transfer gravitons or photons if there was no medium in which to transfer that information.

You make this claim without any evidence. Where is your evidence? Why would any medium be required? If I shoot a gun, is a medium required for the bullet to travel through the air and hit its target? In the case of a bullet, any medium only inhibits the bullet's travel.

says zz5555

In your gun example, it is the "air" in which the bullet is traveling that is the 'medium'. There are other factors, such as friction, wind velocity, weight of the bullet, etc. that could affect the flight of that bullet.
The same is true for a submarine firing off a torpedo where the medium is water. One could also say that the torpedo and the bullet are the "information" or "message".

Defying Gravity in Negative Mass

phys.org> unifying dark matter and dark energy into a single phenomenon: a fluid which possesses 'negative mass." If you were to push a negative mass, it would accelerate towards you

In negative mass
in acceleration of force
as explicitly
if we were to push on negative mass
as we are comprised of
Positive mass implies
Positive and negative in acceleration of force
Produce negative acceleration
and so by scientific conclusion
Negative mass and negative mass in acceleration of force
Give positive acceleration
and so the same in gravity
Positive gravitational mass in interaction of negative gravitational mass
Gives negative repulsive acceleration
Gives negative acceleration
Where as
Negative gravitational mass in interaction of negative gravitational mass
Gives positive attractive acceleration

says granville

So you've read the article concerning such effects of sex on the ISS as almost impossible to achieve?
:)

Any time Benni has no argument, he responds with "Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble".

When he does that you know you have him, it's his way of admitting he has no clue what's going on.

.........in the world of Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble

well, that explains why he uses it so often

of course, some other well-known oft-used phrases he uses to show he has no clue:

differential equations
nuclear engineer
relativity (or Einstein)
thermodynamics
entropy

Ya forgot Inverse Square Law...

.........righto guys, anything that drags your attention out of the psycho-babble world of Pop-Cosmology into the world of real science is not a place you find to be a comfortable abode.

Defying Gravity
SEU

Defying Gravity in Negative Mass

phys.org> unifying dark matter and dark energy i" If you were to push a negative mass, it would accelerate towards you

In negative mass
in acceleration of force
as explicitly
if we were to push on negative mass

says granville

So you've read the article concerning such effects of sex on the ISS as almost impossible to achieve?
:)

The chains that hold
the occupants
of
the international station of space
in procreation
in
the
weightlessness
of the vacuum
as
in
dungeness games down on earth
in chains that bind
in every kink
these
once hidden from view
in shops discrete
as
you
in
your perverted mind, SEU
have
brought them out to play
to
hold down the procreators
in
the vacuum
this
festive season
where
mankind is born anew as babe in arms
to
bind the astronauts
when
mankind is born anew as babe in arms
in
The Space Station

On the NASA forum

https://forum.nas...=13542.0

... a fluid which possesses 'negative mass." If you were to push a negative mass, it would accelerate towards you. ...a fluid which possesses a type of 'negative gravity," repelling all other material around them.

Consider the temperature of a single negative mass particle -- would you expect it to exhibit a temperature below zero K? Then why, in a quantity proportional to the percentage of dark energy, would you expect it to curve spacetime in a negative (repulsive) direction? More to the point, do we observe dark energy curving spacetime (as we do with dark matter) at all, even in a positive direction?

I have my own theory (to be published shortly on ArXiv), that not only unifies dark matter, matter, where the missing antimatter is and why we percieve the universe as 3D+1T for example.

Cool thing it links together not only quantum field theory for both leptons and quarks but also integrates special relativity into it to also explain the difference between mass and momentum as well as how we see 4 gauge bosons - for what is technically 3 force carriers, light (Photon, Timelike), mass (Gluon, Spacelike), and spacetime (Spacelike x Timelike).

Each force carrier consists of 2 x 2D counter rotating fields - that generate a 3rd 2D field for the force carrier - electroweak is special as it takes the two seperate SU(2) for light and mass and crosses them to make spacetime.

Aka SU(2) x (SU2) x SU(4) = SU(Light) x SU(Mass) x SU(Spacetime) and
SU(Spacetime) = cross product of mass and light fields.

Tachyon is the timelike curve, Graviton the spacelike curve to time and space.

Time is 4D - so thats red, green, blue spatial and 1 face of 4D time - so energy along all 4 dimensions must be 2D field (the force carrier like photons, gluons) made up of 2 2D counter rotating fields (real and induced, not imaginary - aka like eletrisity is to magnetism).

Electroweak is the product of the 2D force carriers induced fields - so is 4D, aka its not only connected through r/g/b but must also connect to white/lepton (1s1) and/or white/gluon singlet - the electrweak force is the force carrier that joins the two.

So 1D energy cross interacts to make 2D energy, then 4D, then 8D, etc.

2^n +/- 1 defines energy levels allowed.
n^2 defines the points that will be event horizons - like the one that seperates mass and light for spacetime as well as space and time for light and gluons.

Think 3D box - 6 sides, 3 matter, 3 antimatter, 2 of which are always classed as real (matter of same colour), 4 acting perpendicular (dark matter) - DM:M ration 4:1.

Sabine Hossenfelder has commented on Backreaction

Thanks for the link DS, it's very cool how B takes the time to engage and educate. Imagine a well moderated comment section for every scientific paper that, at the end of the day, would suffice for peer review.

Interesting points made there in the comments about being specific regarding the type of mass (active or passive gravitational mass, or inertial mass) and spin-2 field vs spin-2 particle.

Was surprised to see no mention that there could be net zero gravitational interaction between equal positive and negative masses -- consider the rubber sheet analogy where a negative mass pushes up to make a hill -- why wouldn't there be the equivalent of constructive and destructive interference?

Oxford, lets see some experimental proof of your theory?
If you can't, here is my experimental proof from 2010
https://www.scrib...savvys84

Here is my interpretation for DU explanation about the 'discovery' of 95% missing parts in universe due to the basic mistakes in FLRW cosmology using flawed GR/QM postulates - no need for negative matter as the total (positive) mass M is preserved in the closed energy system of Riemann 4-sphere by balancing the motion and gravitational energies in a dynamic time concept. Matter (dark or visible) is the energized form of mass, see Suntola DU books and papers.

https://phys.org/...ion.html