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. 


Thread Tools  Display Modes 
#1




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 
#2




gravity, Hubble, negative mass and Dr. Farnes

#3




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




gravity, Hubble, negative mass and Dr. Farnes

#5




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 rethinking 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 EinsteindeSitter 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




gravity, Hubble, negative mass and Dr. Farnes

Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Gravity = massgravity + positronspacegravity; superfluid heliumbehaviour #368 Atom Totality 4th ed  Archimedes Plutonium[_2_]  Astronomy Misc  0  March 12th 11 09:08 AM 
Gravity = massgravity + positronspacegravity; 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 