Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #361808 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-25 11:23 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-09-09 20:17 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 150 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 11:23 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 10:59 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 11:03 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 13:10 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 22:53 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 07:18 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 23:56 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 07:17 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-29 02:29 +0200
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-26 11:20 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-26 16:12 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-27 10:25 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 11:11 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 05:52 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-26 06:27 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 15:54 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-26 16:27 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 17:14 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-26 17:25 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-26 21:18 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-26 19:51 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-27 00:46 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-27 03:50 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 09:06 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-27 16:00 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 15:10 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-27 18:54 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 09:28 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-28 16:53 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 09:42 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 19:05 +0200
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-29 11:38 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-29 14:42 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-30 13:29 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-30 17:24 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-30 22:04 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-31 00:26 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 21:45 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-31 01:35 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 08:55 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-27 14:10 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 14:29 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-27 17:47 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 17:43 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-27 20:31 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-27 19:08 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-27 23:49 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-28 05:25 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-28 13:02 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 19:08 +0200
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-28 17:01 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-28 10:21 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-28 11:38 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-28 18:43 +0000
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-05 11:38 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-05 11:38 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-28 17:07 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 09:12 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-28 15:50 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-28 14:44 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-28 19:37 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-28 19:47 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-28 23:41 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-28 02:57 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 09:31 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-28 09:05 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-28 16:56 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 16:07 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-28 17:19 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 16:54 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-28 19:39 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 08:15 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-31 12:32 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-31 11:09 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-28 15:04 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-28 19:10 +0000
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-28 19:11 +0000
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 14:52 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-28 17:15 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 16:51 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-29 03:26 +0200
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 18:49 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 23:43 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-26 21:10 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-26 20:43 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-27 01:03 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 07:59 -0500
Antimatter is the new dark energy? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-26 09:17 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 15:44 -0700
Antimatter is the new dark energy? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-26 09:27 -0700
Antimatter is the new dark energy? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-26 09:43 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-26 13:41 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-26 11:36 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-27 06:41 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-05 12:55 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-05 18:36 +0000
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-05 16:39 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 10:39 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-17 20:44 +0000
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-05 15:55 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-05 21:29 +0000
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-05 12:04 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-05 12:53 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 10:38 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 22:23 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-07 12:28 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 11:50 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-08 11:36 +0200
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 09:26 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-09 09:35 +0200
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 00:03 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-10 04:27 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-10 05:09 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-10 08:29 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-09-10 18:29 +0000
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-10 18:47 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 23:10 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 00:34 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-12 05:11 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 23:05 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-10 15:27 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-11 16:28 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-18 09:38 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 18:55 +0200
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-18 11:47 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 20:55 +0200
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-18 11:51 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-10 09:42 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 10:06 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-09 10:18 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-09 19:30 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-09 19:45 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-09 21:05 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 12:21 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 10:59 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 13:22 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 12:43 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 09:33 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 00:21 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-07 19:26 +0000
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 10:34 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 21:30 +0200
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 10:45 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-09 00:28 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 08:30 +0200
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 09:42 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-09 08:16 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 10:45 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 20:14 +0200
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 20:17 +0200
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 11:23 -0500 |
| Subject | Antimatter is the new dark energy? |
| Message-ID | <mri4pn$dd$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
John Sefton alerted me to some work by a guy named Massimo Villata in Italy, who is a colorful guy but apparently quite competent. He has done some work that suggests that applying the parity and time reversal transformations (part of the famous CPT trio) to general relativity requires that matter and antimatter should repel in any sensible quantum theory of gravity. If that's true, then the cosmological constant in Einstein's field equations, which has been linked to a hypothetical "dark energy" in order to account for the accelerating expansion of the universe, may instead be due to large deposits of antimatter. I'm aware that particle physicists have been saying that the apparent imbalance between the amount of matter over antimatter can be traced to an observed CP violation in flavor-changing interactions. But Massimo's work says that there is likely an equality of matter and antimatter in the universe, in fact, and this would account for observed accelerated expansion. Localized deposits might in fact lead to pressure on nearby matter deposits, compressing them, and so may even account for the additional attraction attributed to dark matter. What's the buzz on this guy's work? Has it been well received? Are there people looking for unique experimental signatures? Is the experimental test by the AEGIS group going to be a direct test of this? http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3810 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/02/120215-dark-energy-antimatter-physics-alternate-space-science/ -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 10:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d01865f5-ac75-42d7-91ba-3f3f553a752d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #361808 |
On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 9:23:24 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > John Sefton alerted me to some work by a guy named Massimo Villata in > Italy, who is a colorful guy but apparently quite competent. > > He has done some work that suggests that applying the parity and time > reversal transformations (part of the famous CPT trio) to general > relativity requires that matter and antimatter should repel in any > sensible quantum theory of gravity. GR does not deal with that. The so-called dark energy represents anti-gravity which is explained by negative mass density in vacuum under both concepts of GR and Newtonian. <shrug> How is the dark energy construed to exist? Well, it is a brainchild of the following four things where every single one must be true. <shrug> ** General Relativity This has been shown as a manmade fiasco by Koobee Wublee. The hypothesis lacks any mathematical consistencies and very favorable interpretations to experiments. Mercury's perihelion advance is a complete joke. It depends on how one derives the quantity, and since Le Verrier's time, there has never been another experimental verification. Traveling through curved space, a photon cannot be deflected if the starting and the ending points are in flat space. So, the only contribution to photon deflection from the Schwarzschild metric is gravitational time dilation which should agree with Newtonian result treating photons as classical particles with mass. The list goes on. <shrug> ** Chandrasekhar limit In a binary system where a star cannibalizes on its hapless companion, the cannibal will explode when its mass reach a certain limit that is the Chandrasekhar mass. Thus, all Type Ia supernovae are expected to flare up with the same amount of mass and thus energy. They become the standard candle of the cosmos to gage distance. This is still in its theoretical stage. <shrug> ** Luminosity According to any experimentation with light, the energy is quantized which can be modeled as individual particles delivering a certain amount of energy according to the frequency (or color). Talking luminosity of light (especially at such a great distance) becomes problematic. Thus, a man-made definition of what the observed luminosity of Type Ia supernovae must be done so. So, how bright the supernovae are is subject to interpretations. <shrug> ** Hubble Law By far, the weakest link of this accelerating expanding universe is the Hubble law. It states (strictly based on observation) that linearly the farther a galaxy is further away the more red-shift the spectrum is going to be. In the 30's, Hubble concluded this law based on relatively primitive technology that can only go out to 100 million light years at the most. If the previous two concerns (Chandrasekhar limit and luminosity) are indeed correct and valid, and if the Hubble law goes by a square function instead of linear, one can conclude no accelerating expansion of our universe. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 11:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f0709763-7f7a-4940-ba45-87a7d97335a8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #361808 |
On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 9:23:24 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > John Sefton alerted me to some work by a guy named Massimo Villata in > Italy, who is a colorful guy but apparently quite competent. > > He has done some work that suggests that applying the parity and time > reversal transformations (part of the famous CPT trio) to general > relativity requires that matter and antimatter should repel in any > sensible quantum theory of gravity. GR does not deal with that. The so-called dark energy represents anti-gravity which is explained by negative mass density in vacuum under both concepts of GR and Newtonian. Besides, electrical attraction between matter and antimatter should overwhelm any repulsion in any gravity derived quantities. It looks like someone has failed to study electromagnetism again. <shrug> How is the dark energy construed to exist? Well, it is a brainchild of the following four things where every single one must be true. <shrug> ** General Relativity This has been shown as a manmade fiasco by Koobee Wublee. The hypothesis lacks any mathematical consistencies but with very favorable interpretations to experiments. Mercury's perihelion advance is a complete joke. It depends on how one derives the quantity, and since Le Verrier's time, there has never been another experimental verification. Traveling through curved space, a photon cannot be deflected if the starting and the ending points are in flat space. So, the only contribution to photon deflection from the Schwarzschild metric is gravitational time dilation which should agree with Newtonian result treating photons as classical particles with mass. The list goes on. <shrug> ** Chandrasekhar limit In a binary system where a star cannibalizes on its hapless companion, the cannibal will explode when its mass reach a certain limit that is the Chandrasekhar mass. Thus, all Type Ia supernovae are expected to flare up with the same amount of mass and thus energy. They become the standard candle of the cosmos to gage distance. This is still in its theoretical stage. <shrug> ** Luminosity According to any experimentation with light, the energy is quantized which can be modeled as individual particles delivering a certain amount of energy according to the frequency (or color). Talking luminosity of light (especially at such a great distance) becomes problematic. Thus, a man-made definition of what the observed luminosity of Type Ia supernovae must be done so. So, how bright the supernovae are is subject to interpretations. <shrug> ** Hubble Law By far, the weakest link of this accelerating expanding universe is the Hubble law. It states (strictly based on observation) that linearly the farther a galaxy is further away the more red-shift the spectrum is going to be. In the 30's, Hubble concluded this law based on relatively primitive technology that can only go out to 100 million light years at the most. If the previous two concerns (Chandrasekhar limit and luminosity) are indeed correct and valid, and if the Hubble law goes by a square function instead of linear, one can conclude no accelerating expansion of our universe. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 13:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mrib29$g6u$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #361814 |
On 8/25/2015 1:03 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > How is the dark energy construed to exist? Well, it is a brainchild of > the following four things where every single one must be true. <shrug> It's remarkable that in all the lip-flapping that went on past this point, you didn't mention at all the real experimental rationale for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. You are hopelessly out of touch with the basics of relativity. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 22:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ed556049-ca89-40cf-b888-e085280a728d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #361816 |
On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 11:10:23 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/25/2015 1:03 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > The so-called dark energy represents anti-gravity which is explained > > by negative mass density in vacuum under both concepts of GR and > > Newtonian. Besides, electrical attraction between matter and > > antimatter should overwhelm any repulsion in any gravity derived > > quantities. It looks like someone has failed to study > > electromagnetism again. <shrug> > > > How is the dark energy construed to exist? Well, it is a brainchild > > of the following four things where every single one must be true. > > <shrug> > > > ** General Relativity > > > This has been shown as a manmade fiasco by Koobee Wublee. The > > hypothesis lacks any mathematical consistencies but with very > > favorable interpretations to experiments. Mercury's perihelion > > advance is a complete joke. It depends on how one derives the > > quantity, and since Le Verrier's time, there has never been another > > experimental verification. Traveling through curved space, a photon > > cannot be deflected if the starting and the ending points are in flat > > space. So, the only contribution to photon deflection from the > > Schwarzschild metric is gravitational time dilation which should > > agree with Newtonian result treating photons as classical particles > > with mass. The list goes on. <shrug> > > > ** Chandrasekhar limit > > > In a binary system where a star cannibalizes on its hapless companion, > > the cannibal will explode when its mass reach a certain limit that is > > the Chandrasekhar mass. Thus, all Type Ia supernovae are expected to > > flare up with the same amount of mass and thus energy. They become > > the standard candle of the cosmos to gage distance. This is still in > > its theoretical stage. <shrug> > > > ** Luminosity > > > According to any experimentation with light, the energy is quantized > > which can be modeled as individual particles delivering a certain > > amount of energy according to the frequency (or color). Talking > > luminosity of light (especially at such a great distance) becomes > > problematic. Thus, a man-made definition of what the observed > > luminosity of Type Ia supernovae must be done so. So, how bright the > > supernovae are is subject to interpretations. <shrug> > > > ** Hubble Law > > > By far, the weakest link of this accelerating expanding universe is > > the Hubble law. It states (strictly based on observation) that > > linearly the farther a galaxy is further away the more red-shift the > > spectrum is going to be. In the 30's, Hubble concluded this law based > > on relatively primitive technology that can only go out to 100 million > > light years at the most. If the previous two concerns (Chandrasekhar > > limit and luminosity) are indeed correct and valid, and if the Hubble > > law goes by a square function instead of linear, one can conclude no > > accelerating expansion of our universe. <shrug> > > It's remarkable that in all the lip-flapping that went on past this > point, you didn't mention at all the real experimental rationale for the > acceleration of the expansion of the universe. What experimental rationale? Does Odd Bodkin aka PD means expected outcome of experimental verifications to continue the religion of GR? <shrug> > You are hopelessly out of touch with the basics of relativity. Koobee Wublee understands the religion of GR inside out. While the Einstein dingleberries including Odd Bokdin aka PD are worshipping the Cosmological constant, Koobee Wublee can show how this scripture of GR can simply be derived from Newtonian concept. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 07:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mrkaqm$2fd$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #361873 |
On 8/26/2015 12:53 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 11:10:23 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/25/2015 1:03 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > >>> The so-called dark energy represents anti-gravity which is explained >>> by negative mass density in vacuum under both concepts of GR and >>> Newtonian. Besides, electrical attraction between matter and >>> antimatter should overwhelm any repulsion in any gravity derived >>> quantities. It looks like someone has failed to study >>> electromagnetism again. <shrug> >> >>> How is the dark energy construed to exist? Well, it is a brainchild >>> of the following four things where every single one must be true. >>> <shrug> >> >>> ** General Relativity >> >>> This has been shown as a manmade fiasco by Koobee Wublee. The >>> hypothesis lacks any mathematical consistencies but with very >>> favorable interpretations to experiments. Mercury's perihelion >>> advance is a complete joke. It depends on how one derives the >>> quantity, and since Le Verrier's time, there has never been another >>> experimental verification. Traveling through curved space, a photon >>> cannot be deflected if the starting and the ending points are in flat >>> space. So, the only contribution to photon deflection from the >>> Schwarzschild metric is gravitational time dilation which should >>> agree with Newtonian result treating photons as classical particles >>> with mass. The list goes on. <shrug> >> >>> ** Chandrasekhar limit >> >>> In a binary system where a star cannibalizes on its hapless companion, >>> the cannibal will explode when its mass reach a certain limit that is >>> the Chandrasekhar mass. Thus, all Type Ia supernovae are expected to >>> flare up with the same amount of mass and thus energy. They become >>> the standard candle of the cosmos to gage distance. This is still in >>> its theoretical stage. <shrug> >> >>> ** Luminosity >> >>> According to any experimentation with light, the energy is quantized >>> which can be modeled as individual particles delivering a certain >>> amount of energy according to the frequency (or color). Talking >>> luminosity of light (especially at such a great distance) becomes >>> problematic. Thus, a man-made definition of what the observed >>> luminosity of Type Ia supernovae must be done so. So, how bright the >>> supernovae are is subject to interpretations. <shrug> >> >>> ** Hubble Law >> >>> By far, the weakest link of this accelerating expanding universe is >>> the Hubble law. It states (strictly based on observation) that >>> linearly the farther a galaxy is further away the more red-shift the >>> spectrum is going to be. In the 30's, Hubble concluded this law based >>> on relatively primitive technology that can only go out to 100 million >>> light years at the most. If the previous two concerns (Chandrasekhar >>> limit and luminosity) are indeed correct and valid, and if the Hubble >>> law goes by a square function instead of linear, one can conclude no >>> accelerating expansion of our universe. <shrug> >> >> It's remarkable that in all the lip-flapping that went on past this >> point, you didn't mention at all the real experimental rationale for the >> acceleration of the expansion of the universe. > > What experimental rationale? Does Odd Bodkin aka PD means expected outcome of > experimental verifications to continue the religion of GR? <shrug> No, I mean Nobel-prize-winning experimental work. That's a hint. > >> You are hopelessly out of touch with the basics of relativity. > > Koobee Wublee understands the religion of GR inside out. Considering that you can't even use the Lorentz transforms correctly, as has been exhibited to me by you, I would say that's very unlikely. > While the Einstein dingleberries including Odd Bokdin aka PD are worshipping > the Cosmological constant, Koobee Wublee can show how this scripture of GR can > simply be derived from Newtonian concept. <shrug> > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-27 23:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4231ea41-792e-44be-9e41-1e4699e2e7ab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #361891 |
On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 5:18:34 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > The so-called dark energy represents anti-gravity which is explained > > by negative mass density in vacuum under both concepts of GR and > > Newtonian. Besides, electrical attraction between matter and > > antimatter should overwhelm any repulsion in any gravity derived > > quantities. It looks like someone has failed to study > > electromagnetism again. <shrug> > > > How is the dark energy construed to exist? Well, it is a brainchild > > of the following four things where every single one must be true. > > <shrug> > > > ** General Relativity > > > This has been shown as a manmade fiasco by Koobee Wublee. The > > hypothesis lacks any mathematical consistencies but with very > > favorable interpretations to experiments. Mercury's perihelion > > advance is a complete joke. It depends on how one derives the > > quantity, and since Le Verrier's time, there has never been another > > experimental verification. Traveling through curved space, a photon > > cannot be deflected if the starting and the ending points are in flat > > space. So, the only contribution to photon deflection from the > > Schwarzschild metric is gravitational time dilation which should > > agree with Newtonian result treating photons as classical particles > > with mass. The list goes on. <shrug> > > > ** Chandrasekhar limit > > > In a binary system where a star cannibalizes on its hapless companion, > > the cannibal will explode when its mass reach a certain limit that is > > the Chandrasekhar mass. Thus, all Type Ia supernovae are expected to > > flare up with the same amount of mass and thus energy. They become > > the standard candle of the cosmos to gage distance. This is still in > > its theoretical stage. <shrug> > > > ** Luminosity > > > According to any experimentation with light, the energy is quantized > > which can be modeled as individual particles delivering a certain > > amount of energy according to the frequency (or color). Talking > > luminosity of light (especially at such a great distance) becomes > > problematic. Thus, a man-made definition of what the observed > > luminosity of Type Ia supernovae must be done so. So, how bright the > > supernovae are is subject to interpretations. <shrug> > > > ** Hubble Law > > > By far, the weakest link of this accelerating expanding universe is > > the Hubble law. It states (strictly based on observation) that > > linearly the farther a galaxy is further away the more red-shift the > > spectrum is going to be. In the 30's, Hubble concluded this law based > > on relatively primitive technology that can only go out to 100 million > > light years at the most. If the previous two concerns (Chandrasekhar > > limit and luminosity) are indeed correct and valid, and if the Hubble > > law goes by a square function instead of linear, one can conclude no > > accelerating expansion of our universe. <shrug> > No, I mean Nobel-prize-winning experimental work. That's a hint. What Koobee Wublee had laid out in these assumptions above is exactly what the Nobel Prize winner had banked its credibility on. If any of these assumptions is false, the study is bogus. Gee! Doesn't Einstein dingleberries understand what scientific method is anymore? <shrug> > Considering that you can't even use the Lorentz transforms correctly, as > has been exhibited to me by you, I would say that's very unlikely. You are making all these shit up! Why don't you complete PD's quest to storm into Caltech registrar office and demand that institution to revoke all these degrees awarded to Koobee Wublee? <shrug> > > While the Einstein dingleberries including Odd Bokdin aka PD are worshipping > > the Cosmological constant, Koobee Wublee can show how this scripture of GR can > > simply be derived from Newtonian concept. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-28 07:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mrpjh7$vr6$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #362055 |
On 8/28/2015 1:56 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 5:18:34 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Koobee Wublee wrote: > >>> The so-called dark energy represents anti-gravity which is explained >>> by negative mass density in vacuum under both concepts of GR and >>> Newtonian. Besides, electrical attraction between matter and >>> antimatter should overwhelm any repulsion in any gravity derived >>> quantities. It looks like someone has failed to study >>> electromagnetism again. <shrug> >> >>> How is the dark energy construed to exist? Well, it is a brainchild >>> of the following four things where every single one must be true. >>> <shrug> >> >>> ** General Relativity >> >>> This has been shown as a manmade fiasco by Koobee Wublee. The >>> hypothesis lacks any mathematical consistencies but with very >>> favorable interpretations to experiments. Mercury's perihelion >>> advance is a complete joke. It depends on how one derives the >>> quantity, and since Le Verrier's time, there has never been another >>> experimental verification. Traveling through curved space, a photon >>> cannot be deflected if the starting and the ending points are in flat >>> space. So, the only contribution to photon deflection from the >>> Schwarzschild metric is gravitational time dilation which should >>> agree with Newtonian result treating photons as classical particles >>> with mass. The list goes on. <shrug> >> >>> ** Chandrasekhar limit >> >>> In a binary system where a star cannibalizes on its hapless companion, >>> the cannibal will explode when its mass reach a certain limit that is >>> the Chandrasekhar mass. Thus, all Type Ia supernovae are expected to >>> flare up with the same amount of mass and thus energy. They become >>> the standard candle of the cosmos to gage distance. This is still in >>> its theoretical stage. <shrug> >> >>> ** Luminosity >> >>> According to any experimentation with light, the energy is quantized >>> which can be modeled as individual particles delivering a certain >>> amount of energy according to the frequency (or color). Talking >>> luminosity of light (especially at such a great distance) becomes >>> problematic. Thus, a man-made definition of what the observed >>> luminosity of Type Ia supernovae must be done so. So, how bright the >>> supernovae are is subject to interpretations. <shrug> >> >>> ** Hubble Law >> >>> By far, the weakest link of this accelerating expanding universe is >>> the Hubble law. It states (strictly based on observation) that >>> linearly the farther a galaxy is further away the more red-shift the >>> spectrum is going to be. In the 30's, Hubble concluded this law based >>> on relatively primitive technology that can only go out to 100 million >>> light years at the most. If the previous two concerns (Chandrasekhar >>> limit and luminosity) are indeed correct and valid, and if the Hubble >>> law goes by a square function instead of linear, one can conclude no >>> accelerating expansion of our universe. <shrug> > >> No, I mean Nobel-prize-winning experimental work. That's a hint. > > What Koobee Wublee had laid out in these assumptions above is exactly what the > Nobel Prize winner had banked its credibility on. If any of these assumptions is > false, the study is bogus. Gee! Doesn't Einstein dingleberries understand what > scientific method is anymore? <shrug> Don't you? Experimental observation yields data that is INDEPENDENT of a theory. The data can then be used to TEST a theory by comparison with the predictions of the theory. In this particular case, the observations are measured luminosity vs. redshift. Redshift is not theory-dependent and neither is measured luminosity. No wrangling of theories is going to invalidate those data. > >> Considering that you can't even use the Lorentz transforms correctly, as >> has been exhibited to me by you, I would say that's very unlikely. > > You are making all these shit up! Why don't you complete PD's quest to storm > into Caltech registrar office and demand that institution to revoke all these > degrees awarded to Koobee Wublee? <shrug> I have no idea about PD's quest. Your incompetence at rather simple mathematics -- application of Lorentz transformations and the taking of a simple limit -- are in the here and now. If you got degrees at CalTech, good for you then, but terrible for you now since you've seemed to lose it all. What HAPPENED to you? > >>> While the Einstein dingleberries including Odd Bokdin aka PD are worshipping >>> the Cosmological constant, Koobee Wublee can show how this scripture of GR can >>> simply be derived from Newtonian concept. <shrug> -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-29 02:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2244976.N4v1IN3hDs@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #362066 |
Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/28/2015 1:56 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 5:18:34 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> Considering that you can't even use the Lorentz transforms correctly, as
>>> has been exhibited to me by you, I would say that's very unlikely.
>> You are making all these shit up! Why don't you complete PD's quest to
>> storm into Caltech registrar office and demand that institution to revoke
>> all these degrees awarded to Koobee Wublee? <shrug>
>
> I have no idea about PD's quest. Your incompetence at rather simple
> mathematics -- application of Lorentz transformations and the taking of
> a simple limit -- are in the here and now. If you got degrees at
> CalTech, good for you then, but terrible for you now since you've seemed
> to lose it all. What HAPPENED to you?
Did you notice that you are communicating with someone who is constantly
referring to themselves in the third person in public, and if that was not …
unusual enough, not even by their real name?
As Terry Pratchett would have said, that is “a sure sign of someone who
wears his underpants on his head.” So your question is moot; whoever (s)he
was when graduating from CalTech, for whatever reason (s)he went mental
since then.
HTH
PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 11:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aa13d96b-5b2e-4643-8816-edb46c6c69e6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #361814 |
W dniu wtorek, 25 sierpnia 2015 20:03:34 UTC+2 użytkownik Koobee Wublee > > The so-called dark energy represents anti-gravity which is explained by negative mass density in vacuum under both concepts of GR and Newtonian. The actual situation is quite opposite: the repulsion is just still the same gravitational attraction, because the mass exists over the assumed boundary to the 13 Gly in the fallacious model - Big Bang. If you integrate the gravity over an infinite sphere... then you just get the Einsteinian constant, exactly! But you should take into account the obvious decaying of any real interaction with a distance. The standard Newtonian gravity in an infinite - uniform universe: int 1/r^2 dV = int 1/r^2 4 pi r dr -> inf But it's in fact for an empty universe! Because any interaction at a distance must propagate through the non-empty space, thus it must decay... and exponential - like a light in a fog, ie.: Exp(-t/tau) where tau is a time constant in the typical statistical decay process, and we know it today already: tau = 1/H. The finite universe is just an another idiotic postulate, similar to the geocentric idea, and the flat earth earlier.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 16:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u27stal3an9gb5p3eu0v7cn3jkr701rbi9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #361910 |
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 11:20:13 -0700 (PDT), alsor@interia.pl wrote:
>W dniu wtorek, 25 sierpnia 2015 20:03:34 UTC+2 uzytkownik Koobee Wublee
>>
>> The so-called dark energy represents anti-gravity which is explained by negative mass density in vacuum under both concepts of GR and Newtonian.
>
>The actual situation is quite opposite:
>the repulsion is just still the same gravitational attraction,
>because the mass exists over the assumed boundary to the 13 Gly
>in the fallacious model - Big Bang.
>
>If you integrate the gravity over an infinite sphere...
>then you just get the Einsteinian constant, exactly!
>
>But you should take into account the obvious decaying
>of any real interaction with a distance.
>
>The standard Newtonian gravity in an infinite - uniform universe:
>int 1/r^2 dV = int 1/r^2 4 pi r dr -> inf
>
>But it's in fact for an empty universe!
>Because any interaction at a distance must propagate
>through the non-empty space, thus it must decay...
>and exponential - like a light in a fog, ie.:
>
>Exp(-t/tau)
>
>where tau is a time constant in the typical statistical decay process,
>and we know it today already: tau = 1/H.
>The finite universe is just an another idiotic postulate,
>similar to the geocentric idea, and the flat earth earlier.
You are on the wrong track, just like everybody
else gullible enough to think any "thing" propagates
or interacts over great distances without that "thing"
being detectable with all the lab instruments today.
The 1/16th inch, 3 ply plywood I just got was
Polish mahogany, but you head is a solid block
of hardwood.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-27 10:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7a35327d-beb1-434b-bb26-3b2cb99cdfe6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #361921 |
W dniu środa, 26 sierpnia 2015 22:13:15 UTC+2 użytkownik kefischer > >But it's in fact for an empty universe! > >Because any interaction at a distance must propagate > >through the non-empty space, thus it must decay... > >and exponential - like a light in a fog, ie.: > > > >Exp(-t/tau) > > > >where tau is a time constant in the typical statistical decay process, > >and we know it today already: tau = 1/H. > >The finite universe is just an another idiotic postulate, > >similar to the geocentric idea, and the flat earth earlier. > > You are on the wrong track, just like everybody > else gullible enough to think any "thing" propagates > or interacts over great distances without that "thing" > being detectable with all the lab instruments today. I never said something like that... The situation is a quite opposite: the non-expandision is detected, observed directly... it's evident in every image from the HUDF! > The 1/16th inch, 3 ply plywood I just got was > Polish mahogany, but you head is a solid block > of hardwood. Good insight... The Poland is just the special place - it's a strong experienced by a history, thus the good place - probably the best in the world! Copernicus not accidentally lived in the Poland - not in England, France, ect.! You must be very careful... when you talk to the me... zasrańcu.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 11:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a89a7c2e-6df4-4b2b-99b2-32c7c2081a50@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #361808 |
The mystery of high local speeds and slow distant expansion does not mean a new particle needs to be defined like anti-matter with anti-gravity. Instead of more particle festivities,, consider my theory of graviticspansion. The volume of the universe expands out of matter at a constant rate. Volume V = 4/3 pi r cubed The cube law for volume gives the Dark Matter Illusion: The speed varies as the cube root of distance. Close volumes expand with faster edge speeds than distant volumes can expand an edge speed. That gives slow expansion where the experimental data show it, and fast expansion that fits the data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 05:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b7d20a30-ea5f-4aa6-bec9-abb4223554d2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #361808 |
On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 12:23:24 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > John Sefton alerted me to some work by a guy named Massimo Villata in > Italy, who is a colorful guy but apparently quite competent. > > He has done some work that suggests that applying the parity and time > reversal transformations (part of the famous CPT trio) to general > relativity requires that matter and antimatter should repel in any > sensible quantum theory of gravity. > > If that's true, then the cosmological constant in Einstein's field > equations, which has been linked to a hypothetical "dark energy" in > order to account for the accelerating expansion of the universe, may > instead be due to large deposits of antimatter. > > I'm aware that particle physicists have been saying that the apparent > imbalance between the amount of matter over antimatter can be traced to > an observed CP violation in flavor-changing interactions. > > But Massimo's work says that there is likely an equality of matter and > antimatter in the universe, in fact, and this would account for observed > accelerated expansion. Localized deposits might in fact lead to pressure > on nearby matter deposits, compressing them, and so may even account for > the additional attraction attributed to dark matter. > > What's the buzz on this guy's work? Has it been well received? Are there > people looking for unique experimental signatures? > > Is the experimental test by the AEGIS group going to be a direct test of > this? > > http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3810 > http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/02/120215-dark-energy-antimatter-physics-alternate-space-science/ > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Hi Odd > Is the experimental test by the AEGIS group going to be a direct test of > this? Thank you for making this post. It has lead to some googling on AEGIS. It turns out research in this area is being done at York University. That is right next door to myself. Had no idea that what is discussed in an internet group could be so close at hand. Prof Bhadra is a real spit fire. She could make a dent in physics. Leaving neutrinos aside Massimo Villata could be on to something. Anti matter could well be the driving force behind an accelerating universe as a substitute for dark energy . A member of this group Tom is involved in such research.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 06:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <665d6b5f-ed1f-4d77-8b1a-0cdb76afe63f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #361892 |
On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 6:52:04 AM UTC-6, John Heath wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 12:23:24 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > John Sefton alerted me to some work by a guy named Massimo Villata in > > Italy, who is a colorful guy but apparently quite competent. > > > > He has done some work that suggests that applying the parity and time > > reversal transformations (part of the famous CPT trio) to general > > relativity requires that matter and antimatter should repel in any > > sensible quantum theory of gravity. > > > > If that's true, then the cosmological constant in Einstein's field > > equations, which has been linked to a hypothetical "dark energy" in > > order to account for the accelerating expansion of the universe, may > > instead be due to large deposits of antimatter. > > > > I'm aware that particle physicists have been saying that the apparent > > imbalance between the amount of matter over antimatter can be traced to > > an observed CP violation in flavor-changing interactions. > > > > But Massimo's work says that there is likely an equality of matter and > > antimatter in the universe, in fact, and this would account for observed > > accelerated expansion. Localized deposits might in fact lead to pressure > > on nearby matter deposits, compressing them, and so may even account for > > the additional attraction attributed to dark matter. > > > > What's the buzz on this guy's work? Has it been well received? Are there > > people looking for unique experimental signatures? > > > > Is the experimental test by the AEGIS group going to be a direct test of > > this? > > > > http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3810 > > http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/02/120215-dark-energy-antimatter-physics-alternate-space-science/ > > > > > > -- > > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Hi Odd > > > Is the experimental test by the AEGIS group going to be a direct test of > > this? > > Thank you for making this post. It has lead to some googling on AEGIS. > It turns out research in this area is being done at York University. That > is right next door to myself. Had no idea that what is discussed in an > internet group could be so close at hand. Prof Bhadra is a real spit fire. > She could make a dent in physics. Leaving neutrinos aside Massimo Villata > could be on to something. Anti matter could well be the driving force > behind an accelerating universe as a substitute for dark energy. This is very interesting. I had given up on antimatter having negative gravity. One reason is E = mc² but the "m" in that equation is inertial mass. It's possible that the PoE can be modified to allow negative mass to apply only to gravity. The matter-antimatter inequality has been a longstanding problem in cosmology which I don't believe is solved by a slight difference in, what was it, symmetry? > A member of this group Tom is involved in such research. Yes, I'm looking forward to seeing some results from those experiments. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 15:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dcf45b11-0338-470d-9434-7e328bcc05ca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #361894 |
On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 9:27:08 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 6:52:04 AM UTC-6, John Heath wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 12:23:24 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > John Sefton alerted me to some work by a guy named Massimo Villata in > > > Italy, who is a colorful guy but apparently quite competent. > > > > > > He has done some work that suggests that applying the parity and time > > > reversal transformations (part of the famous CPT trio) to general > > > relativity requires that matter and antimatter should repel in any > > > sensible quantum theory of gravity. > > > > > > If that's true, then the cosmological constant in Einstein's field > > > equations, which has been linked to a hypothetical "dark energy" in > > > order to account for the accelerating expansion of the universe, may > > > instead be due to large deposits of antimatter. > > > > > > I'm aware that particle physicists have been saying that the apparent > > > imbalance between the amount of matter over antimatter can be traced to > > > an observed CP violation in flavor-changing interactions. > > > > > > But Massimo's work says that there is likely an equality of matter and > > > antimatter in the universe, in fact, and this would account for observed > > > accelerated expansion. Localized deposits might in fact lead to pressure > > > on nearby matter deposits, compressing them, and so may even account for > > > the additional attraction attributed to dark matter. > > > > > > What's the buzz on this guy's work? Has it been well received? Are there > > > people looking for unique experimental signatures? > > > > > > Is the experimental test by the AEGIS group going to be a direct test of > > > this? > > > > > > http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3810 > > > http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/02/120215-dark-energy-antimatter-physics-alternate-space-science/ > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > Hi Odd > > > > > Is the experimental test by the AEGIS group going to be a direct test of > > > this? > > > > Thank you for making this post. It has lead to some googling on AEGIS. > > It turns out research in this area is being done at York University. That > > is right next door to myself. Had no idea that what is discussed in an > > internet group could be so close at hand. Prof Bhadra is a real spit fire. > > She could make a dent in physics. Leaving neutrinos aside Massimo Villata > > could be on to something. Anti matter could well be the driving force > > behind an accelerating universe as a substitute for dark energy. > > This is very interesting. I had given up on antimatter having negative > gravity. One reason is E = mc² but the "m" in that equation is inertial > mass. It's possible that the PoE can be modified to allow negative mass > to apply only to gravity. The matter-antimatter inequality has been a > longstanding problem in cosmology which I don't believe is solved by a > slight difference in, what was it, symmetry? > > > A member of this group Tom is involved in such research. > > Yes, I'm looking forward to seeing some results from those experiments. > > Gary Hi Gary >It's possible that the PoE can be modified to allow negative mass > to apply only to gravity. It does not have to be that much of a compromise. Suppose matter attracts matter and antimatter attracts anti matter. It is only matter and anti matter that repels. That one is a little easier to take and Uncle Albert comes out on top as being correct. I have no justification for these statements , consider it a wish list :<)..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 16:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5c6828e7-317e-40fc-8193-0eae575b76ef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #361936 |
On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 4:54:56 PM UTC-6, John Heath wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 9:27:08 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > This is very interesting. I had given up on antimatter having negative > > gravity. One reason is E = mc² but the "m" in that equation is inertial > > mass. It's possible that the PoE can be modified to allow negative mass > > to apply only to gravity. The matter-antimatter inequality has been a > > longstanding problem in cosmology which I don't believe is solved by a > > slight difference in, what was it, symmetry? > > > > > A member of this group Tom is involved in such research. > > > > Yes, I'm looking forward to seeing some results from those experiments. > > > > Gary > > Hi Gary > > > It's possible that the PoE can be modified to allow negative mass > > to apply only to gravity. > > It does not have to be that much of a compromise. Suppose matter attracts > matter and antimatter attracts anti matter. It is only matter and anti > matter that repels. This would mean that inertial matter and inertial antimatter have the same polarity but gravitational matter and gravitational antimatter have opposite polarity. This violates the weak PoE as presently constructed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_interaction_of_antimatter > That one is a little easier to take and Uncle Albert comes out on top as > being correct. I have no justification for these statements , consider it > a wish list :<).. What's hard to take is time reversal of antimatter; however, the transactional interpretation of QM uses that principle, too. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 17:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d7b01247-e6b8-4d38-abaf-3e517375c9b1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #361938 |
On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 7:28:01 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 4:54:56 PM UTC-6, John Heath wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 9:27:08 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > This is very interesting. I had given up on antimatter having negative > > > gravity. One reason is E = mc² but the "m" in that equation is inertial > > > mass. It's possible that the PoE can be modified to allow negative mass > > > to apply only to gravity. The matter-antimatter inequality has been a > > > longstanding problem in cosmology which I don't believe is solved by a > > > slight difference in, what was it, symmetry? > > > Need to know what PoE means before proceeding? > > > > A member of this group Tom is involved in such research. > > > > > > Yes, I'm looking forward to seeing some results from those experiments. > > > > > > Gary > > > > Hi Gary > > > > > It's possible that the PoE can be modified to allow negative mass > > > to apply only to gravity. > > > > It does not have to be that much of a compromise. Suppose matter attracts > > matter and antimatter attracts anti matter. It is only matter and anti > > matter that repels. > > This would mean that inertial matter and inertial antimatter have the > same polarity but gravitational matter and gravitational antimatter have > opposite polarity. This violates the weak PoE as presently constructed: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_interaction_of_antimatter > > > That one is a little easier to take and Uncle Albert comes out on top as > > being correct. I have no justification for these statements , consider it > > a wish list :<).. > > What's hard to take is time reversal of antimatter; however, the transactional > interpretation of QM uses that principle, too. > > Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 17:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1caf9e72-019e-4436-976d-34fc72e41e71@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #361940 |
On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 6:14:30 PM UTC-6, John Heath wrote: > > Need to know what PoE means before proceeding? Principle of Equivalence
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 21:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <80pstahk276oa00u7futh5mcsbpjitkdob@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #361941 |
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:25:34 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
<hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 6:14:30 PM UTC-6, John Heath wrote:
>>
>> Need to know what PoE means before proceeding?
>
>Principle of Equivalence
Moron, it has nothing to do with gravitational mass,
why is everybody so ignorant?
The effects of gravity are identical to the effects
of acceleration, that is the PoE, there is no way the
term "gravitational mass" or "inertial mass" is involved
in that statement, but no doubt you and everybody
else will continue to be jackasses and continue
to confuse the PoE with the equivalence principle.
What the hell is a guy that doesn't know what
the Poe is, doing in the relativity newsgroup?
Oh, sorry, does that apply to everybody?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web