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

negative masses?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 6th 18, 06:39 PM posted to sci.astro
Jan Panteltje
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 435
Default negative masses?

negative masses?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1205093716.htm
Bringing balance to the universe:
New theory could explain missing 95 percent of the cosmos

paper is he
http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-63

Not sure what to make of it...

Would be fun. creating negative mas sin the lab?
Propulsion?

:-)
Ads
  #2  
Old December 6th 18, 08:49 PM posted to sci.astro
dlzc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,422
Default negative masses?

Dear Jan Panteltje:

On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 10:39:37 AM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote:
negative masses?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1205093716.htm
Bringing balance to the universe:
New theory could explain missing 95 percent of
the cosmos

paper is he
http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-63

Not sure what to make of it...

Would be fun. creating negative mas sin the lab?
Propulsion?

:-)


Is crap, it seems to me. Scientists name in arxiv.org bring up a single-author paper in 2017. He has published on arxiv since, but never on this topic. Any black hole terminates all the fun.

David A. Smith
  #3  
Old December 6th 18, 10:51 PM posted to sci.astro
Martin Brown[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 164
Default negative masses?

On 06/12/2018 19:49, dlzc wrote:
Dear Jan Panteltje:

On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 10:39:37 AM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje
wrote:
negative masses?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1205093716.htm
Bringing balance to the universe: New theory could explain missing
95 percent of the cosmos

paper is he http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-63

Not sure what to make of it...

Would be fun. creating negative mas sin the lab? Propulsion?

:-)


Is crap, it seems to me. Scientists name in arxiv.org bring up a
single-author paper in 2017. He has published on arxiv since, but
never on this topic. Any black hole terminates all the fun.


It was accepted for A&A' so it has survived peer review.

I can't quite get my head round it yet but somehow the creation of a
negative mass fluid to fill an expanding universe feels wrong somehow.
But that might just be my old school prejudice showing.

Having said that the idea seems to fit the data, has an appealing
symmetry and is a testable hypothesis so time will tell whether or not
it pans out when tested. The author has a credible pedigree.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.07962

Is the version on Arxiv. The author is more usually associated with
observational astronomy and the square kilometre array eg.

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript...15/v2/download

I wouldn't be too quick to condemn it as junk. Even if it is wrong it is
still an interesting new (actually old and revisited) take on lambdaCDM.

I have asked for opinions about it on sci.astro.research in the thread
on "dark matter hypothesis" but it is awaiting moderator approval.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  #4  
Old December 7th 18, 09:22 AM posted to sci.astro
Jan Panteltje
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 435
Default negative masses?

Martin Brown wrote
I have asked for opinions about it on sci.astro.research in the thread
on "dark matter hypothesis" but it is awaiting moderator approval.


I see your posting there now,
will follw the discussion.
  #5  
Old December 7th 18, 03:09 PM posted to sci.astro
dlzc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,422
Default negative masses?

Dear Martin Brown:

On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 2:51:31 PM UTC-7, Martin Brown wrote:
....
It was accepted for A&A' so it has survived peer review.

I can't quite get my head round it yet but somehow the
creation of a negative mass fluid to fill an expanding
universe feels wrong somehow. But that might just be my
old school prejudice showing.

Having said that the idea seems to fit the data, has an
appealing symmetry and is a testable hypothesis so time
will tell whether or not it pans out when tested. The
author has a credible pedigree.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.07962

Is the version on Arxiv. The author is more usually
associated with observational astronomy and the square
kilometre array eg.


Not saying he is a crank. Saying "publish or perish" is not high quality Science.

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript...15/v2/download

I wouldn't be too quick to condemn it as junk.
Even if it is wrong it is still an interesting new
(actually old and revisited) take on lambdaCDM.


New is not always better. He is following a lead that is probably a mistake. But to not follow it, is NOT Science.

I have asked for opinions about it on
sci.astro.research in the thread on "dark matter
hypothesis" but it is awaiting moderator approval.


Excellent plan.

My two cents, a Velikovskian argument...
* gravity is not a force, so Dark Energy, or in this case negative energy, does no work in expanding the Universe, it only increases entropy.
* galactic superclusters have been shrinking over time. The record sized superclusters are far away / long ago, and granted our "near is now" myopia limits what of the Universe we experience, the Laniakea supercluster was at one time gravitationally bound, and is not longer. How did this stuff that is repelled by "positive stuff", manage to get in between, manage to shred the Laniakea supercluster... as it probably has all the large superclusters? It SHOULD have compressed superclusters, if this model was at all correct.
* if the second being however many clock ticks it is, can be adjusted and generate / duplicate Universal expansion (not gravitation binding, just expansion) by being 1 part in 10^18 "shorter" with each passing second, what need is there of Magic stuff, just because someone decided the Cosmological Constant was not constant, and whatever we formulated, needed to be presented as an energy term?

One problem is, another Q&A site has been suffering under a "superfluid or supersolid Dark Matter" spammer, and this will be just more gist for his mill.

Another is, the SciFi guys will thank that this negative energy can be captured and harnessed into Alcubierre drives, and we will stop looking for alternative approaches...

David A. Smith
  #6  
Old December 7th 18, 11:18 PM posted to sci.astro
Steve Willner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,146
Default negative masses?

In article ,
Jan Panteltje writes:
negative masses?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1205093716.htm
Bringing balance to the universe:
New theory could explain missing 95 percent of the cosmos


paper is he
http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-63


The A&A site has been flaky for me, but it eventually served up the
paper. I agree with Martin: highly unconventional but seems
mathematically consistent. It requires _two_ unconventional
hypotheses -- existence of negative mass and continuous creation of
it -- so skepticism on that basis is warranted.

I'll follow further discussion in sci.astro.research .

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
 




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
we're negative 4HEAD[_3_] Misc 8 July 26th 13 04:37 AM
Metal deposit discovered: 30 million solar masses of chromium, 8million solar masses of manganese Yousuf Khan[_2_] Astronomy Misc 6 December 10th 09 06:45 PM
What are the two kinds of Masses ?? Christopher Policy 0 May 6th 06 02:33 PM
Bz now negative!! Brian O'Halloran UK Astronomy 3 October 29th 03 09:22 PM
Mars for the masses Terry B Amateur Astronomy 17 September 9th 03 06:59 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.