Dark Matter and Energy - an Explanation?....

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by exchemist, Dec 5, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,544
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,098
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,052
    Interesting to follow developments.

    Not sure how negative matter would form halos around galaxies though. It should be repelled by masses.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. mathman Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,550
    Dark matter and dark energy are very different. Unifying them seems unlikely. Dark matter seems to have positive mass.
     
  8. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,544
    Thanks for this.

    I see it has been accepted for publication in Astronomy and Astrophysics, so seems to be a fairly serious piece of work.
     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,544
    True. I don't follow it either. But one would need to see the model.

    It has the curious feature that it relies on continuous generation of -ve mass. The author is careful not to claim too much for it, describing it as a toy model. But encouragingly I see it is said to make testable predictions. If so, we will soon see if it goes anywhere.
     
  10. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,141
    On p2, 2nd para in article (post #2 link) at https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.07962, there is the following:
    That single statement imo dooms the author's hypothesized DE/DM 'solution'. His accompanying scenarios in Fig.1 is (imo!) only correct wrt uppermost one. The other two follow Hermann Bondi's fundamentally wrong 1957 formulation of 'negative mass basic dynamical characteristics'. Thereafter adopted as mainstream position - with various dissenters however. In the 3rd para p2, it reads in part:
    Wrong, and wrong. To (hopefully) see why, realize that an inductor is properly the magnetic inertia analog of mass. The well known 'natural response' of an RL circuit is:
    I(t) = I_0(exp(-Rt/L))
    For standard derivation and definition of terms, see e.g. Appendix here:
    https://www.khanacademy.org/science...-and-forced-response/a/ee-rl-natural-response

    Substituting -L i.e. negative inductance for positive inductance L there is perfectly legitimate mathematically. Physically, the result should be obvious. As also the implication for supposed negative inertial mass. I knew this result for quite some years, but only just now found an article backing it up explicitly. In a somewhat long-winded but imo rigorous manner. (No I won't post a link to it, just yet anyway.)
    Now Hermann Bondi was a 'giant' in the GR community with a very impressive track record. Moreover, his findings re 'negative mass' have been scrutinized by many other famous names within the GR community, and in general adopted as 'physically sound'. What say you good PC/mainstream folks here - was he right or wrong?
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2018
  11. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,141
    • Please do not insult other members
    The expected spineless null response. Having posted elsewhere the article hinted at earlier, might as well do it here, just for completion:
    https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...rsit/aa73b5b07e669a1dad279bf96f22484ba581296f
    Click on 'View Paper' tab for freely downloadable pdf doc.
    It probably has very few citations to it. If that is your determinant of worth, don't even bother downloading. I go by quality of content. And fully endorse the main conclusion. Negative inertial mass, regardless of the notional sign of active/passive gravitational mass (or densities in the case of fields/'fluids'), is utterly impossible.
     
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,052
    Following announcement closely. Interested to see developments.

    Note to self: 36 hours - Q's expected response window before he starts tossing insults thither and yon.
    And now we have a second thread as a data point for "directly counterproductive behavior".
     
  13. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,141
    Your own response being - constructive? And in reference to the unnamed but 'we all know which' other thread, I note your dismissive response to Alex's recent input. Twenty five words or less? Attention span issues maybe.

    Now if someone wants to discuss actual physics here, and actually can, I'm still open for feedback.
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,751
    • Please do not flame other members
    Good stuff Dave! It's about time that at least one of you lot has the balls to stand up to this arrogant creep that calls himself q-reeus.
    Perhaps some more of you are getting a better inside into this poor excuse for a man, that only has the guts to use the anonymity of the net to do his bullying.
    And I see of late he now has come further out of the closet and declared himself as aligning with the conspiracy nuts, particularly with relation to 9/11. That along with his hidden ID and creationist agenda is what is driving his usual anti mainstream/GR nonsense.His VG4 is still hypothetical, but that's good enough for him to push his agenda across numerous forums, all without any empirical support. And if by chance any model does in time supersede GR, all well and good, and you will probably see this fucking gorilla screaming it from the tree tops that it was what he has been saying all along, It will be the science that determines it, and the scientific method, certainly not this loud mouth bully.
    At least in my time here, I can say that I did stand up to his bullying and nonsense, and never shirked from that job.
    Want other reasons and evidence pointing to him as a loud mouth alternative bullying arrogant rat? Sure! Did anyone ever once see him rebuke the other
    well known nuts on this forum? You know, the likes of river, and MR or dmoe? Probably more closet doors he is hiding behind I wouldn't mind betting. Of course he
    likes to promote himself as some superior scientist when in reality he is nothing more then what I have described.
    To queerus, I must say this to you...Though even as a 74 year old, I would reckon I could smack your arse if we ever met....I have not yet met any
    arrogant bully who I havn't been able to handle! I will also add that I suppose I'm lucky I don't reside anywhere near you [you are in the USA I take it?]
    as I also see you as someone who would need a gun to back up your bullying and stand over tactics. I pity your poor Mrs if you have ever had one! And say what you like now sweety, because unlike you, when I say I won't be back, I wont be back.
    As a final note, why I am here now is our bully friend has followed me over to another forum, and as usual, I have taken him to task with his usual religious
    like preaching re how science is entrenched and how GR is finished [not sure how long he has been saying that]
    In the usual flareup with this excuse for a human being we have both been given a three day holiday, which will enable me to catch up on a leak in the roof of my man cave! Anyway fellas, just thought
    I would mention that after seeing this feabag conducting his usual pretentious bullying tactics, and only one of you with enough intestinal fortitude to stand up to the prick! Although something
    tells me many of you are now becoming more aware of what a screwball he really is!
    Have a good Chrissy one and all!
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2018
  15. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,141
    Can't quite decide if #11 above or p2 #25 here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/traveling-toward-a-light-source.160434/
    best exemplifies the deranged, hate-filled fantasy ramblings of a strong contender for ultimate projection hypocrite.
    Whatever, just hope that 'I won't be back' promise really, really sticks this time.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Oh yeah - good Chrissy one and ALL. Not necessarily merry & best wishes, it seems.
     
  16. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,292
    HI Paddoboy its great to have you back even if only for a moment.

    I wish you would reconsider coming back I miss your cut and paste news items and input generally.

    So where do you think Q-reeus has it wrong as most of us dont know as much about General Relativity as you do.

    Also while you are here I would love to here what you think about all the new evidence referred to in that other thread as I have concerns about no 7.

    You seem a little stressed I do hope all is well.

    Anyways so good to see you back and somewhat lively as I have wondered if old age had caught up with you but seems you still have it.
    Alex
     
  17. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,098
    Alex, There were members here before you, they did have an understanding of GR. They did try to say or explain things to Q-reeus. But, he soon turns the atmosphere of the threads to hostility.
    Example: Check out page 2 and 3 here. (2013)
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-response-to-alphanumeric-re-closed-thread.134396/page-2

    I have never heard Paddo say he was an expert on GR. Perhaps we should all shut up and just listen to Q-reeus who is always correct, is that what your telling paddo?
    I hope you now enjoy this thread and the atmosphere that has been set by this:
    Now, having seen people try to explain things to Q-reeus and his hostile response, I refer to my first link above, I don't think Q-reeus makes himself approachable. I just expect a blast.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2018
  18. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,946
    Would negative mass have negative inertia? (How would that work?) Would "matter" composed of particles with negative mass behave as special and general relativity require conventional matter to behave? (The idea reminds me of tachyons.)

    A preprint of the paper is here (I haven't read it):

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.07962.pdf

    The author seems to me to be assigning inertia according to the absolute value of the mass, regardless of its sign. (I'm not a physicist and may be getting that all wrong.)

    Wouldn't his 'figure 1' in the paper above represent the possibility of a reactionless, no-fuel-necessary space drive? Just place positive mass A next to negative mass B, and A would be repelled from B and B attracted towards A. So shouldn't the two of them move off in one direction? (I'd guess that a bunch of physical principles like conservation of energy would be snapped, crackled and popped by that idea.) Nice science-fiction speculation though. The problem might be turning the drive off when the spaceship reaches its destination.

    Yeah, I don't understand that part either. The author does go to quite a bit of effort discussing it. Maybe I should read his paper. (It seems surprisingly comprehensible, for physicist-speak.)
     
  19. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,292
    I was telling paddoboy that I missed him being here and was trying to some how settle things down somewhat and encourage him to discuss the science which I expect he can do better than me for example.

    I guess I tend to try and overlook things folk say that are insulting when they get over passionate about something they particularly interested in and so I did not get upset when Q-reeus became somewhat passionate and overstepped the line but I did not think my lack of responce was spinless but appropriate because I dont know enough to comment about anything really in this thread.
    Most of all I did not like to see Paddoboy so upset.
    Being upset is not good for folk it can be a serious concern as the years roll on...
    I just wish everyone could be nice to each other and except that others may hold different views or beliefs and still be worthy of respect.

    I do hope everyone can be cheerful.

    Alex
     
  20. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,292
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,751
    OK, contrary to what I said, as an old Aussie mate you do deserve an answer.
    Firstly, no I'm not upset, not one little bit in fact, even though along with q-reeus am having a 3 day break from the other place...Chrissy shopping, fixed the leak in my man cave etc plenty to do. What I have done is simply reflect what I have observed here yesterday. Our Q friend has never been any other way but arrogant in his approach and insulting in his demeanor.
    For many years he simply did hope to reflect to other members on this forum, that he was just a person who was capable of critically acclaiming science theories and the scientific method, all mostly with disdain and cynicism, and hoped that the rest of us poor ignorant folk here would shake our heads in disbelief that we were so lucky to have someone of such incredible knowledge to set the rest of us on the right path. Then lo and behold the closet door was kicked in when it was finally revealed that he was a believer in ID....nothing wrong with that per se, but when you view it in conjunction with his now standard anti GR views and silly erroneous claims that science is incalcitrant and entrenched, then things start to fall into place, and his agenda can be established.
    Let me also say Alex old chum, that while obviously a facetious remark, I am not anywhere near an expert in GR, but I also don't accept that if it wasn't still the overwhelmingly accepted theory of gravity, then we would have a myriad of scientists pointing out the flaws and stepping in line for the Nobel prize.
    As I have tried to knock into his big fat head many times, if he truly has found any fault or error in GR, he should write up a professional paper, for professional peer review, and I see from a link by sweetpea that even Alpha Numeric told him the same thing..A more knowledgaeble mod we have never had by the way. GR is the current standard Alex and nothing as yet has changed and in my opinion will not for many more years, if at all any change is forthcoming.
    Then we have the other door busted wide open and find he also dabbles in conspiracy nonsense.
    It does surprise me though Alex that you could even entertain such nonsensical tripe as have any validity whatsoever. Let me say with regards to your article claiming new evidence. There is no new evidence,
    only obvious gaps in the reputable official version...you know the same sort of gaps that our creationists friends like to raise to support there "god of the gaps" argument?
    My biggest fault Alex [if it is a fault] is I hate bullies! and could relay a couple of incidents in my life where I have had the need to confront these arseholes.
    But anyway I must be off! Let me say, as an Aussie, please rethink your silly stance re even consideration of this 9/11 nonsense. Leave it to the nutbags!
     
  22. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,141
    Been doing some serious time-machine trawling on behalf of buddy paddoboy aka beecee. Thanks for now clarifying the ingenuousness of your 'thank you' back here:
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/ne...vity-challenges-gr.160900/page-3#post-3551696
    There clearly wasn't any genuineness there, in the light of your #14 here.
    Now, as to that link where AN and I locked horns, I suggest for starters you go back to post #1 there, and thence trace it back to the disgraceful, bating way AN locked that earlier thread. Then dispatched it to a backwater. I've no doubt intended to so anger me, I would give a response actually closer to paddoboy's diatribe(s) here, which he would then declare grounds for an immediate life ban. That paddoboy has not been life banned here says a lot about SF.
    Of course not - he would be immediately found out. But this place did allow him to post a thread that pretentiously claimed to be a 'tutorial' on GR!
    Is that what you got there in http://www.sciforums.com/threads/ne...vity-challenges-gr.160900/page-3#post-3551526
    ? Funny then your 'courteous and thankful' response there. Again - thanks for telling me I can never trust you to be genuine.

    You cannot follow the actual arguments in general (e.g. AN episode(s) above dredged up) nor have any grasp of why I have reacted the way I did. I do not suffer fools or knaves or cowards gladly. You and some others mistake (or intentionally misrepresent) my standing up for myself, and stating the obvious, for so-called 'bullying' or 'arrogance'. Your mate paddoboy/beecee/Maroubrabeach/ASTRO BOY (maybe others) is the one actually epitomizing those attributes.

    Sad that useless diversionary posts, some of which I'm obliged to respond to, have totally derailed this thread also.
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,751
    Usual excuses against anyone that dares confront you on your nonsense and crusade. And those "qualities" you mention that you do not suffer gladly, actually fit you personally to a "T' as others here are beginning to find out.

    ps: I see you claim to have published your tripe with vixra? Need anymore be said? Try something reputable to support your stance. You won't and you can't as you would once again be put to the sword.
    With your life ban recommendation, while that has never happened to me on any of the four science forums I have participated in at different times, you most certainly have been banned in a forum where your nonsense was revealed for what it was.

    pss: With the OP of course, like many scientific papers [this one not peer reviewed of course] many are simply hypothetical and speculative in nature...that's what science is all about. Even GR was hypothetical at one time. Other's simply are lost forever in oblivion after research reveals there unlikelyness and/or invalidity.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page