A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

gravity, Hubble, negative mass and Dr. Farnes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 10th 18, 12:45 PM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default gravity, Hubble, negative mass and Dr. Farnes

An isotropic Universe is defined as having each subdivision of its volume
containing equal amounts of every constituent endemic to that Universe. The
matter contained is everywhere volumetrically equivalent. Negative and positive
aspects of its energy exactly cancel at each point.

Perturbations are random. On the whole they cancel each other. But, random
implies a possibility exists that two or more could occur close enough that their
effects could enhance each other rather than negate.

If such an event occurs, the matter within that volume can conceivably
collapse. The resulting negative energy of the gravity within that volume
must be balanced by a positive energy reaction or the energy balance
in the Universe will not be maintained.

The zero point energy is predicted by GR. Anything that initiates the growth of
matter structure also takes energy from the local spacetime to sustain that
growth. In order for the Universe to remain energy neutral on a global scale
a positive energy response must occur elsewhere. New space time must be
created devoid of the negative energy associated with matter structures!

The expansion of the Universe can be explained as an energy budget response
to the growth of Matter structures. The resulting concentration of negative energy
must be balanced by an equivalent concentration of positive energy; the positive
energy inherent to new spacetime devoid of matter. The Voids.

A spacetime with a positive energy is equivalent to a spacetime field that
would be associated with a negative mass. The Voids fit that description.
So, any concentration of matter from an initially isotropic Universe and the expansion
of that Universe become two sides to the same phenomenon.

Dr. Farnes’ new paper shows that a continuously created negative mass fluid can exhibit
Dark Matter type phenomena. But, he also states that an energy inherent to the vacuum
could replace that fluid. The Voids fill the need nicely.

We don’t need to look for a new type of matter we need only understand the energy
ramifications of the Universe we have.

Brad
Ads
  #3  
Old December 12th 18, 05:10 PM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
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

  #4  
Old December 13th 18, 06:10 PM posted to sci.astro
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default gravity, Hubble, negative mass and Dr. Farnes

wrote:
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.


I also said: “In *this* order.” You should have read my words and heeded them.

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.


It was _wrong_; see below.

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.


I would not call *that* a “phase transition”.

[Likewise, “isotropic” (Ancient Greek: “isos” + “tropikos”: “equal when
turning”) means “the same in every direction”. What you described is
meant by the word “homogeneous” (Ancient Greek: “homogenes”: “of the
same family/kind”) instead.]

Density differences, (that are imprinted on the CMB), are
then indications of seeds for matter structures.


Yes, correct.

My idea is that these density fluctuations are the result of random perturbations
in a previously homogenous Universe.


But on large scales our universe *is* assumed to be homogeneous (*and*
isotropic).

This assumption is based on the fact that, in all directions, we observe
less galaxies the farther we look, precisely as if our universe would be
homogeneous and the inverse square law for the intensity of electromagnetic
radiation, extinction, and the distance–redshift relationship would apply
(which so far have only been confirmed).

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.


While voids *are* growing, "matter structures" *in general* do NOT, because
galaxies on "short" distances and objects in galaxies are gravitationally bound.

For example, the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy (M 31), two galaxies of
the Local Group, are going to merge in ca. 2 × 10⁹ years as they are moving
towards each other.

Gravitational binding is the reason why the Hubble relation only holds for
greater distances (outside the Local Group; and then only using *general*
relativity).

(Standard models accept only gravitational collapse.)


Simply untrue. The current standard model of cosmology (ΛCDM) *predicts* a
universe whose expansion is accelerating, because that is precisely what has
been observed in 1998 (the Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 was awarded for the
discovery) [1].

But that expansion is not affecting the formation of moons, planets, stars,
galaxies, and galaxy clusters, for the reason given above.

[1] https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2011/summary/

That each is dependent upon the other for perpetuating
the overall structure we see today.


This statement is almost vacuous. But if interpreted in your favor,
precisely this connection *is* made by ΛCDM.

That is the low density Voids and the high density filaments.


So what?

It is known that expanding space time metrics will push Matter.


No, that is only your misconception.

[ex falso quodlibet]


--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
  #5  
Old December 14th 18, 10:55 AM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default gravity, Hubble, negative mass and Dr. Farnes

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn


I would not call *that* a “phase transition”.


Your opinion! Citations showing otherwise please.

[Likewise, “isotropic” (Ancient Greek: “isos” + “tropikos”: “equal when
turning”) means “the same in every direction”.. What you described is
meant by the word “homogeneous” (Ancient Greek: “homogenes”: “of the
same family/kind”) instead.]


I am aware of what isotropic and homogeneous mean. The standard cosmological
model uses that assumption.


But on large scales our universe *is* assumed to be homogeneous (*and*
isotropic).


Otherwise the FLRW metric would not be valid within that standard model.

This assumption is based on the fact that, in all directions, we observe
less galaxies the farther we look,


That is just wrong.

precisely as if our universe would be
homogeneous and the inverse square law for the intensity of electromagnetic
radiation, extinction, and the distance–redshift relationship would apply
(which so far have only been confirmed).


I have no argument with that. You’ve only introduced that to rebut an idea I didn’t
state.

The FLRW metric assumes a uniform density in an expanding Universe.
The model is a dust model. It predates the discovery of large
scale structure. (Voids and Filaments) Noting that the Universe is isotropic and
homogeneous only on large scales is a “fix” that reinforces the original dust model
idea. I have no problem with that as long as one realizes that it effectively hides the
local significance of Voids and Filaments.


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.


While voids *are* growing, "matter structures" *in general* do NOT, because
galaxies on "short" distances and objects in galaxies are gravitationally bound.


Mattter structures grow by gravitational collapse of existing matter. Voids grow
by either the introduction of new spacetime or the expansion of existing spacetime.
You’ve introduced an objection to a conjecture I did not make.

(Standard models accept only gravitational collapse.)


Simply untrue. The current standard model of cosmology (ΛCDM) *predicts* a
universe whose expansion is accelerating, because that is precisely what has
been observed in 1998 (the Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 was awarded for the
discovery) [1].


I know that. Again, you’ve misinterpreted what I wrote. Matter Structure growth is assumed
to be the result of gravitational collapse.

But that expansion is not affecting the formation of moons, planets, stars,
galaxies, and galaxy clusters, for the reason given above.


Again, I know. I never wrote that. You’ve introduced an objection to a statement I never made.


That each is dependent upon the other for perpetuating
the overall structure we see today.


This statement is almost vacuous. But if interpreted in your favor,
precisely this connection *is* made by ΛCDM.


It is the lambda cold dark matter model that I’m reinterpreting. I’m saying that
we should not look for exotic matter. We should instead be taking what we know
to be real and re-thinking our notions of how they can interact.



That is the low density Voids and the high density filaments.



It is known that expanding space time metrics will push Matter.


No, that is only your misconception.


Then you reject the conclusions of W. Israel? Of Humitaka Sato? And
others? You should explore the literature.

[ex falso quodlibet


Ultimately what I’m arguing (and you’re misinterpreting) is that a model
based on gravitational potentials with more/less values spread across
the Universe cannot be valid. Or at least not complete!
The fact that Voids expand should be reason
enough to at least modify that idea. GR says (and I accept, so you know and
don’t attempt another reinterpretation) that curved space in the presence
of matter is the reason for gravitational attraction. Voids are also curved
space...in the opposite sense! Do we really need to look for Dark Matter?

The Einstein-deSitter spacetime was valid for the early Universe (within the FLRW
metric) it’s still valid when applied only to the Voids. Our Universe can be modeled
as having two distinct spacetime regimes that produce the large scale structure
we see today.

Brad


  #6  
Old December 14th 18, 02:55 PM posted to sci.astro
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default gravity, Hubble, negative mass and Dr. Farnes

wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn


I would not call *that* a “phase transition”.


Your opinion! Citations showing otherwise please.


Well, then *actually* *cite* evidence for your claims for a change.

[Likewise, “isotropic” (Ancient Greek: “isos” + “tropikos”: “equal when
turning”) means “the same in every direction”. What you described is
meant by the word “homogeneous” (Ancient Greek: “homogenes”: “of the
same family/kind”) instead.]


I am aware of what isotropic and homogeneous mean. The standard cosmological
model uses that assumption.


Yes, but not only.

But on large scales our universe *is* assumed to be homogeneous (*and*
isotropic).


Otherwise the FLRW metric would not be valid within that standard model.


Correct.

This assumption is based on the fact that, in all directions, we observe
less galaxies the farther we look,


That is just wrong.


No, it is not.

precisely as if our universe would be
homogeneous and the inverse square law for the intensity of electromagnetic
radiation, extinction, and the distance–redshift relationship would apply
(which so far have only been confirmed).


I have no argument with that.


Then your statement above, “that is just wrong” is inconsistent with your
opinion here.

Because that we *see* (observe) less galaxies the farther we look is a
direct consequence of the mentioned relationships. Do you even know what
the words mean?

You’ve only introduced that to rebut an idea I didn’t state.


Incorrect. You stated:

My idea is that these density fluctuations are the result of random
perturbations in a previously homogenous Universe.


The wording “*previously* homogenous” [sic; emphasis mine] implies that you
have the idea that our universe *has been* _homogeneous_ but no longer is.
Observation shows that this idea is wrong.

The FLRW metric assumes a uniform density in an expanding Universe.


Uniform *energy* density, yes.

The model is a dust model. It predates the discovery of large
scale structure. (Voids and Filaments) Noting that the Universe is isotropic and
homogeneous only on large scales is a “fix” that reinforces the original dust model
idea.


Complete and utter nonsense. Why do you make up stuff and pretend that it
is true?

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.


While voids *are* growing, "matter structures" *in general* do NOT, because
galaxies on "short" distances and objects in galaxies are gravitationally bound.


Mattter structures grow by gravitational collapse of existing matter.


Complete nonsense. Think about what you are saying! How can something
*grow* if it collapses? How can it possibly *grow* *by* collapsing?

Voids grow by either the introduction of new spacetime


No.

or the expansion of existing spacetime.


Yes.

You’ve introduced an objection to a conjecture I did not make.


Wrong, I objected to nonsense that you, clueless, did claim.

(Standard models accept only gravitational collapse.)


Simply untrue. The current standard model of cosmology (ΛCDM) *predicts* a
universe whose expansion is accelerating, because that is precisely what has
been observed in 1998 (the Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 was awarded for the
discovery) [1].


I know that.


No, you do not. Apparently you do not realize what you are writing.

Again, you’ve misinterpreted what I wrote.


There is no way to misinterpret your quoted statement above. You are simply
utterly confused, and you do not know what you are doing – what the words
*mean* that you use.

Matter Structure growth is assumed to be the result of gravitational collapse.


No. That idea *of yours* is utterly ridiculous.

But that expansion is not affecting the formation of moons, planets, stars,
galaxies, and galaxy clusters, for the reason given above.


Again, I know. I never wrote that.


Yes, you did. You claimed that (the) standard model(s) assume(s) something
that it/they do(es) not do, and then you went on to argue against your own
straw man. That is typical of a crackpot.

That each is dependent upon the other for perpetuating
the overall structure we see today.

This statement is almost vacuous. But if interpreted in your favor,
precisely this connection *is* made by ΛCDM.


It is the lambda cold dark matter model that I’m reinterpreting.


s/reinterpreting/misunderstanding/

I’m saying that we should not look for exotic matter.


Which is nonsense. You cannot assume that ΛCDM (that means:
Lambda-Cold-*Dark-Matter*) is *correct* and then discard dark matter (DM).
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

We should instead be taking what we know to be real


Dark matter, as it is defined, *is* real. There *is* matter than does not
interact electromagnetically, but does interact gravitationally. Therefore
we observe its effects: non-Newtonian intragalactic rotation curves and
unexpected gravitational lensing by galaxy clusters.

and re-thinking our notions of how they can interact.


Your ideas are not based on either theoretical or observational facts, only
on your ignorance about the topic that you are having ideas about.

This approach is hopeless.

It is known that expanding space time metrics will push Matter.

No, that is only your misconception.


Then you reject the conclusions of W. Israel? Of Humitaka Sato? And
others? You should explore the literature.


I reject *your* *claims*.

[ex falso quodlibet


Ultimately what I’m arguing (and you’re misinterpreting) is that a model
based on gravitational potentials with more/less values spread across
the Universe cannot be valid. […]


The Newtonian quantity of “gravitational potential” does not appear in
general relativity, the theory underlying ΛCDM.

You are completely clueless.

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gravity = mass-gravity + positron-space-gravity; superfluid heliumbehaviour #368 Atom Totality 4th ed Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 March 12th 11 09:08 AM
Gravity = mass-gravity + positron-space-gravity; Ida & Dactyl #367Atom Totality 4th ed Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 March 11th 11 09:10 PM
Causation - A problem with negative mass. Negastive mass brian a m stuckless Astronomy Misc 0 October 2nd 05 01:39 AM
Causation - A problem with negative mass. Negastive mass implies imaginary mass brian a m stuckless Astronomy Misc 0 October 1st 05 08:36 PM
negative mass brian a m stuckless Astronomy Misc 2 September 30th 05 11:21 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.