Another regressive outrage--negative gravity

PSI Blog 20190313 Another regressive outrage--negative gravity

Thanks to Jesse for this news article showing how math assumptions control regressive speculation:
He writes:

“Too good. These mathemagicians never give up. Negative gravity.....what’s next?”


In response to what's next, Piotr writes:

“I'm betting on negative & infinite dimensions.”

The "scientific" paper is published in Astronomy & Astrophysics.

1 comment:

George Coyne said...

The idea of negative mass is not new. Joaqion Luttinger was considering this concept in 1951. He was interested in its how gravity and other forces would affect its behavior. In 1957 Hermann Bondi theorized that an object with negative inertial mass would accelerate in the opposite direction to that of the push. That conclusion in itself should be enough to invalidate the abstraction of negative mass.
The article states that “dark matter and dark energy – invisible substances that have never been observed by scientists- make up the parts of the universe that modern physics cannot measure or explain.” As I do not accept that “energy” is a substance as defined in the orthodox way by Merriam Webster as: “a fundamental entity of nature that is transferred between parts of a system in the production of physical change within the system and usually regarded as the capacity for doing work.” Rather I agree with Borchardt’s definition, which states that energy is a matter-motion term concerning the exchange of matter’s motion representing a calculated result from a number for mass times the square of a velocity number.
It’s somewhat amusing that every time observations intrude on orthodox cosmology theory, the proponents of it don’t discard it, but rather add “a new ingredient”, which in this case is the “creation tensor.” This process has also occurred many times in the Big Bang theory. I have strong doubts in the reality of negative mass. It strikes me as an irrational, non-intuitive and invalid abstraction. I concur with the statement that unfounded math assumptions are the problem in this case.