View Single Post
  #3  
Old December 12th 18, 05:10 PM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default gravity, Hubble, negative mass and Dr. Farnes

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
wrote:
An isotropic Universe is defined as having each subdivision of its volume
containing equal amounts of every constituent endemic to that Universe. […]


No.


[not even wrong]


Learn English, study physics, get a newsreader, post physical/cosmological
theories in English.


Sorry. This is my fault. It never occurred to me that I was being “murky”.
I was aware that my use of isotropic was clumsy. So, let me elucidate...

According to the Standard Cosmological model at some early epoch there
was a phase transition between an energy dominated Universe and a matter
dominated Universe. Density differences, (that are imprinted on the CMB), are
then indications of seeds for matter structures. My idea is that these density
fluctuations are the result of random perturbations in a previously homogenous
Universe. So my idea was to begin my monologue prior to the development
of these density differences.

It was also my intention that the growth of Matter structures and the growth of
the Voids are concurrent. (Standard models accept only gravitational collapse.)
That each is dependent upon the other for perpetuating
the overall structure we see today. That is the low density Voids and the high density
filaments.

It is known that expanding space time metrics will push Matter. It’s also accepted that
gravitational collapse occurs. It is and has been my contention that Dark phenomenon
are two sides to the same coin. The significance of Dr. Farnes paper (for me) is
in section 5 Future considerations where he states that his simulations indicate that
the negative mass fluid could as easily be a quality of the space time, a vacuum energy.

So, we accept that the Universe is expanding. GR predicts it. We accept that the expansion is
accelerating. So either existing spacetime is expanding or new spacetime is being created.
I prefer that spacetime, on some quantum level, is expanding.

If we take the gravitational field of normal Matter we know that it’s the temporal portion of the
metric that changes. If we take the gravitational field of negative mass we say it has the opposite
characteristics to a normal field. The expanding metric of the Voids looks a lot like a field that
would be generated by a negative mass. The problem is the source of the energy. I find the
concept of negative mass to be distasteful.

But, I accept that the concentration of negative energy in gravitational fields could be concurrent
with the equal concentrations of positive energy elsewhere in the Universe. The Voids. If
spacetime has a substance then it must have a physical response to both types of energy.
The large energy difference that is apparent between the Dark regime and the normal regime;
as well as the accelerating cosmological constant is where the mystery for me lies. Perhaps
matter limits spacetime response in the weak fields, finds maximum expression in Black Holes,
and has no limitations in the opposite when Matter isn’t present.

Brad