Milky Way Moving Away from Void

"Charles D. Bohne" wrote in message
news:ca3873tua4icsrdp928of3mt53r6qbtl9u@pasoschwei z.de...
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:46:11 GMT, "greysky"
wrote:

As for the voids, I would suspect they're
filled with the 'missing' antimatter of the universe. Being
gravitationally
repulsive, antimatter can't come together to form anything, so it just
sits
there, as a sort of fog, repelling the rest of the universe into the shape
it currently is in.

Hi greysky!

"ordinary anitmatter" doesn't show anti-gravitiy, but there is a lot
of speculation ongoing about mirror forms to ordinary matter AND
ordinary antimatter in a supersymmetric CPT-variation which might
lead to up to 8 different sorts of "matter".

HTH.
C.

Hi Charles,

Yes there indeed can be many different types of matter - when I first
formulated my theory I made the assumption that there can be only one
variance to normal matter (hey what did we know about the universe 20 +
years ago?) As of now, I recon there could be several different forms of
'dark matter' in the huge cosmic voids our galaxies form the walls of. But,
because of baryon conservation, there has to be at least an equal amount of
antimatter out there somewhere. Although antimatter does have a positive
inertial mass, I have shown how it can have a negative gravitational mass -
as long as it is antiparallel to normal mater, having only a sign change.
So, the question is how does a universe full of antimatter which has a
positive inertial mass and a negative gravitational mass, affect the total
energy distribution of the universe? Interestingly, my model predicted the
large scale ''swiss cheese' look we currently understand the universe to
look like, but in the 1980's I was laughed at.

Greysky

"Charles D. Bohne" wrote in message
newsu1a73h4973o5p9rtv4m1m2r86cq2cc5lt@pasoschwei z.de...
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:51:47 -0700, "greysky"
wrote:

Interestingly, my model predicted the
large scale ''swiss cheese' look we currently understand the universe to
look like, but in the 1980's I was laughed at.

Hello Greysky!

Is there a page where I can have a glance at your model? I would
really love to see it - even if it is not complete, or even a little
bit "outdated", Thanks!

C.

When I get a bit of extra time, I'll OCR it and upload it onto my web site
as a PDF file. But the central idea is easy enough for me to say here. I
recognize the equivalence principle we are using today as a special case of
a more general form, which is: / I(m) / = / G(m) /. Or, stated as "The
absolute magnitude of inertial mass is equal to the absolute magnitude of
gravitational mass."

This breaks down into 4 solutions:

1} I(m) = G(m)

2} -I(m) = -G(m)

3} -I(m) = G(m)

4} I(m) = -G(m)

Solution 1 is the current equivalent principle. Solution 2 is mathematically
equivalent to solution 1. Solution 3 violates conservation of energy laws
as it implies matter which self accelerates. Only solution 4 is currently
possible and has not been excluded by observation. Note it is possible for
antimatter to fall into this classification as antimatter has been verified
to have a positive inertial mass, but there has been no experiment to verify
its gravitational mass as of yet. It is my idea that this missing antimatter
currently resides as an atomic or molecular particulate fog in the empty
voids. It exerts a negative gravity, or a scalar field tension on the walls
of the voids which are made up of galaxies, causing much of the present day
large scale cosmogonical features we observe as well as driving expansion.
Now, there may be other forms of matter making up the dark content of the
voids, but as the current thought on this dark matter makes it transparent
to electromagnetic fields, starlight from the other side should be observed
when we look at a void with the Hubble, but the voids are totally
featureless - if there were only dark matter of the unknown kind filling the
voids there would be some trace of the galaxies existing on the other side
as light would be able to pass through it unaffected, but there isn't any.
This dovetails with my idea for the antimatter fog, which is absorbing all
the light. Almost as an afterthought, my theory shows that baryon number is
a true conserved quantity, as there were an equal number of antiprotons
created as there were protons during the big bang - and so far all
experiments looking for proton decay and haven't found any bear me out on.
This,as you know, bears important implications for grand unification, as
well as the large scale energy balance of the universe. But, back in the
1980's, all the then current theorists were expecting to see a proton decay
"any day now". It was the age of Superforce and Kamiokande, as well as
String theory was beginning to take over the halls of academia - there was
no room in that world for me. I threatened the order of things by making the
entire universe so easy to visualize a grade school kid could see it all.
Something had to go - me or String Theory. Well, I didn't really go away,
but I've been here, watching the field of physics literally thinking itself
to death, ever since.

Greysky

From Greysky:

Now, there may be other forms of matter making up the dark content of the
voids, but as the current thought on this dark matter makes it transparent
to electromagnetic fields, starlight from the other side should be observed
when we look at a void with the Hubble, but the voids are totally
featureless - if there were only dark matter of the unknown kind filling the
voids there would be some trace of the galaxies existing on the other side
as light would be able to pass through it unaffected, but there isn't any.


Then there's the alternate and much simpler explanation mentioned in
previous threads: Large-scale intergalactic*flow fields* of the
spatial medium itself. Even without an acceleration component, such
flows would still lens light, generating the appearance of huge
trackless, featureless voids. The "Swiss cheese" look may be greatly
exaggerated by such flow lensing*.
Only under the 'no-medium', space-as-void
doctrine is "dark matter" needed.
oc
*Flow lensing is distinct from 'gravitational lensing'. Gravitation is
the product of, and only of, the acceleration component of a flow,
which imparts momentum to mass. Light, being massless, will be
deflected by *any* flow whether it's accelerating or not.

oc What if gravitational lensing from distant galaxies is aways taking
place. Some greatly focused some with little focus,but all having some
bending of the light waves. Makes good sense that radio waves might get
bent?? After all both are created by vibrations. bert PS if this is
reality than the universe might be bigger than the way our eyes can see
it.

On Jun 18, 5:47 am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

What if gravitational lensing from distant galaxies is aways taking
place?

Not just 'gravitational' lensing, Bert, but large-scale flow lensing.
A non-accelerating flow will still lens light.

Makes good sense that radio waves might get
bent??

Of course. It's all EM radiation.

.. if this is reality than the universe might be bigger than the way our eyes can see it.

If all lensing effects were to be nulled out, the large-scale
structuring of the supercluster field *might* be quite different than
it appears.
Of course if there is 'no medium' then you gotta
have "dark matter" to explain the lensing.
oc

"Charles D. Bohne" wrote in message
news:sslb73libijoo17m58fs4b0qvakqk9ig38@pasoschwei z.de...
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:19:06 GMT, "greysky"
wrote:

When I get a bit of extra time, I'll OCR it and upload it onto my web site
as a PDF file.

Would be nice of you. You could also send it to my mailaddress maybe
that's easier than posting it to your site. Thanks!

Sure - I can e-mail you a rough copy. Is the address in your header accurate
(The one starting with "Me@...") ? The file size is around a megabyte. The
file was made with Acrobat 8 - and has some comments by me in sticky notes
intersperced throughout the text.

Greysky

"Charles D. Bohne" wrote in message
news:r18d73trddf16jl29d7u7muqekk6qkpg1f@pasoschwei z.de...
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:03:08 -0700, "greysky"
wrote:

Sure - I can e-mail you a rough copy. Is the address in your header
accurate
(The one starting with "Me@...") ? The file size is around a megabyte. The
file was made with Acrobat 8 - and has some comments by me in sticky notes
intersperced throughout the text.

That would be very kind of you! And yes, this mailaddress works.
#C.

Consider it done :-)

greysky