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?”
https://nypost.com/2018/12/06/this-theory-may-explain-why-95-of-the-universe-is-missing/amp/?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral
https://nypost.com/2018/12/06/this-theory-may-explain-why-95-of-the-universe-is-missing/amp/?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral
In response to
what's next, Piotr writes:
“I'm betting on
negative & infinite dimensions.”
Posts
9 comments:
I love “I'm betting on negative & infinite dimensions.” Good one! We could have a contest for predicting the future of the mathemagicians (I love that one as well) and their epicycles within stacks of epicycles. It seems that nothing is too unreasonable to propose, as long as you have some mathematical construct to support. No evidence necessary. What ever happened to the idea that irrational numbers do not actually exist, even if they are helpful in equations that have good predictive power? What ever happened to "you can't divide by zero"? And on and on. I guess "Higher" math applied to cosmogeny means you throw out those basic rules. One does not always equal one if you allow the possibility of other dimensions, ghosts, and angels on a pinhead.
The idea of negative mass is not new. Joaqion Luttinger was considering this concept in 1951. He was interested in 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, whether defined in the orthodox way as “the capacity for doing work” or in Borchardt’s way as 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.
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, whether defined in the orthodox way as “the capacity for doing work” or in Borchardt’s way as 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.
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, whether defined in the orthodox way as “the capacity for doing work” or in Glenn’s Borchardt’s way as 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.
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, whether defined in the orthodox way as “the capacity for doing work” or in Glenn’s Borchardt’s way as 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.
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, whether defined in the orthodox way as “the capacity for doing work” or in Borchardt’s way as 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 interesting 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.
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.
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 interesting 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.
Hi Glenn,
Well if negative gravity is the answer, then have they tried a negative dimension or two or three etc?
Maybe the universe is just a big Klein bottle.
Ed Mason
[GB: Thanks for the comment. Don't know about any more than three dimensions or any universal bottles, but I imagine they would consider the rise of a helium balloon to be the result of "negative gravity."]
Post a Comment