Notices
Results 1 to 45 of 45
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke

Thread: Voids as Anti-Gravity Bubbles

  1. #1 Voids as Anti-Gravity Bubbles 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Are cosmic voids simply bubbles of anti-gravity? Are voids expanding and causing or assisting the expansion of the universe? If we measure the borders of voids will we find that the voids' expansions are compressing space and raising the temperature of space around the borders?

    Anti-gravity would push matter away, resulting in no stars, planets, etc inside a void, and that's what voids are.

    I like pseudo science .. it's the real thing.


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    267
    Baryon acoustic oscillations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    There is currently no indication that such a thing as "anti-gravity" exists. In the absence of a comprehensive theory of quantum gravity I suppose it cannot be 100% ruled out, but I would find it rather unlikely, and it would be hard to reconcile with General Relativity.
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    There is currently no indication that such a thing as "anti-gravity" exists. In the absence of a comprehensive theory of quantum gravity I suppose it cannot be 100% ruled out, but I would find it rather unlikely, and it would be hard to reconcile with General Relativity.
    Relativity is in serious doubt now that the repeated CERN experiment confirmed faster-than-light neutrinos. I can't help but be certain of anti-gravity as there seems to be an anti-particle for every particle, which may or may not be relevant, but gravity is theorized to consist of gravitons.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    General relativity is experimentally well verified, and is unlikely to be rendered false by the CERN experiment. More than likely the neutrino phenomenon - if it turns out be real, which hasn't as per yet been established beyond all doubt - will be explainable by quantum effects without the need for amendments to GR. It is too early to draw conclusions from this experiment.In any case GR does not per se rule out the existence of anti-gravity, but it does require the concept of negative mass, which seems unlikely to me, and most certainly has not been observed anywhere in the known universe.
    diegocaba likes this.
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    But then again, we don't know what a theory of quantum gravity will look like in the end, so there isn't any way to rule out the existence of anti gravity either
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    General relativity is experimentally well verified, and is unlikely to be rendered false by the CERN experiment. More than likely the neutrino phenomenon - if it turns out be real, which hasn't as per yet been established beyond all doubt - will be explainable by quantum effects without the need for amendments to GR. It is too early to draw conclusions from this experiment.In any case GR does not per se rule out the existence of anti-gravity, but it does require the concept of negative mass, which seems unlikely to me, and most certainly has not been observed anywhere in the known universe.
    I observe it in voids, which seem to be 'anti-mass'.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    To the best of my knowledge there is no observational evidence anywhere of negative mass. If I am wrong, please provide a reference ? The voids you are referring to are far easier explained by density fluctuations in the early universe. No exotic forms of matter are needed.
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    To the best of my knowledge there is no observational evidence anywhere of negative mass. If I am wrong, please provide a reference ? The voids you are referring to are far easier explained by density fluctuations in the early universe. No exotic forms of matter are needed.
    I thought the cosmic background radiation which was said to be solid proof of the big bang held no density fluctuatiions. Oh .. another slight modification to facts? Really, we make up our own fantasies and theories .. mine is that cosmic voids are anti-gravity bubbles. I can offer no more proof than can supporters of the Big Bang. All is open to individual assessment. We can believe whatever we find most substantial to ourselves without justification.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
     

  11. #10  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,064
    if you are not even well versed in the general theory the why are you trying to attack it as false?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  12. #11  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    I thought the cosmic background radiation which was said to be solid proof of the big bang held no density fluctuatiions. Oh .. another slight modification to facts? Really, we make up our own fantasies and theories .. mine is that cosmic voids are anti-gravity bubbles. I can offer no more proof than can supporters of the Big Bang. All is open to individual assessment. We can believe whatever we find most substantial to ourselves without justification.
    Sounds like you need to go and learn a bit more about the big bang theory and the large body of evidence for it.
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    if you are not even well versed in the general theory the why are you trying to attack it as false?
    It would facilitate this conversation if you quoted the person you are questioning, Paleo. I will assume you are questioning me. I read Einstein's General Theory in a little book of his theories straight from the horse's mouth so to speak. I seem to understand it as well as most people on these forums. I am not "attacking" it in a destructive way, but merely questioning it as is supposed to be accepted by any any scientist of any theory .. I am told repeatedly that questioning is what science is, that "a theory cannot be proven" (although I cannot for a moment accept that statement.) I accept Einstein as a genius, and he would probably be one of the very last people to state that his theories are absolute irrefutable fact. I have even uncovered a strong suggestion that Einstein never intended the speed of light in a vacuum to be unalterable, as most science participants seem to think it is unalterable. Einstein said, for this purpose we shall elevate it to a law.' I think he meant for his theory, to simplify things. I believe I read that in his book of theories.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,064
    THe theory has been revised in the 50+ years since he first put it out there, and its much more complex then a summary in a "little book of his theories", The comment on laws and theories is also wrong. theories do not become laws at any point. They are at the same level of acceptance but one explains why things happen and one explains how.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    THe theory has been revised in the 50+ years since he first put it out there, and its much more complex then a summary in a "little book of his theories", The comment on laws and theories is also wrong. theories do not become laws at any point. They are at the same level of acceptance but one explains why things happen and one explains how.
    The Big Bang is treated as Divine Law and as Divine Theory also by many science enthusiasts. Almost every book on cosmology begins, 'The Big Bang began it all.' (paraphrased of course, not a direct quote.)
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
     

  16. #15  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,064
    That has nothing to do with what I posted though. IT has been modified since it was originally proposed.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  17. #16  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    The Big Bang is treated as Divine Law and as Divine Theory also by many science enthusiasts. Almost every book on cosmology begins, 'The Big Bang began it all.' (paraphrased of course, not a direct quote.)
    I think that is just because adding the caveats known to all scientists (current theory ... best evidence ... appears to suggest ... the best of our understanding ... error bounds ... hypothesis ... may change with new evidence ... balance of probabilities ... etc) to every sentence rather detracts from the ability to write a punchy science article in less than X words, or produce a best-selling pop-sci book.

    The problem then is that many readers aren't aware that they are being given a simplified version of the full story.
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    The Big Bang is treated as Divine Law and as Divine Theory also by many science enthusiasts. Almost every book on cosmology begins, 'The Big Bang began it all.' (paraphrased of course, not a direct quote.)
    I think that is just because adding the caveats known to all scientists (current theory ... best evidence ... appears to suggest ... the best of our understanding ... error bounds ... hypothesis ... may change with new evidence ... balance of probabilities ... etc) to every sentence rather detracts from the ability to write a punchy science article in less than X words, or produce a best-selling pop-sci book.

    The problem then is that many readers aren't aware that they are being given a simplified version of the full story.
    I think they begin their books that way because they believe in Big Bang instead of science.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    I thought the cosmic background radiation which was said to be solid proof of the big bang held no density fluctuatiions. Oh .. another slight modification to facts? Really, we make up our own fantasies and theories .. mine is that cosmic voids are anti-gravity bubbles. I can offer no more proof than can supporters of the Big Bang. All is open to individual assessment. We can believe whatever we find most substantial to ourselves without justification.
    Sounds like you need to go and learn a bit more about the big bang theory and the large body of evidence for it.
    The more I learn about the theory the more it tells me it's false.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    if you are not even well versed in the general theory the why are you trying to attack it as false?
    It would facilitate this conversation if you quoted the person you are questioning, Paleo. I will assume you are questioning me. I read Einstein's General Theory in a little book of his theories straight from the horse's mouth so to speak. I seem to understand it as well as most people on these forums. I am not "attacking" it in a destructive way, but merely questioning it as is supposed to be accepted by any any scientist of any theory .. I am told repeatedly that questioning is what science is, that "a theory cannot be proven" (although I cannot for a moment accept that statement.) I accept Einstein as a genius, and he would probably be one of the very last people to state that his theories are absolute irrefutable fact. I have even uncovered a strong suggestion that Einstein never intended the speed of light in a vacuum to be unalterable, as most science participants seem to think it is unalterable. Einstein said, for this purpose we shall elevate it to a law.' I think he meant for his theory, to simplify things. I believe I read that in his book of theories.
    Einstein never said that the speed of light is unalterable, he only said it is the same for all observers regardless of their frame of reference. There is a big difference between these two statements.
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    To the best of my knowledge there is no observational evidence anywhere of negative mass. If I am wrong, please provide a reference ? The voids you are referring to are far easier explained by density fluctuations in the early universe. No exotic forms of matter are needed.
    I thought the cosmic background radiation which was said to be solid proof of the big bang held no density fluctuatiions. Oh .. another slight modification to facts? Really, we make up our own fantasies and theories .. mine is that cosmic voids are anti-gravity bubbles. I can offer no more proof than can supporters of the Big Bang. All is open to individual assessment. We can believe whatever we find most substantial to ourselves without justification.
    Actually the background radiation, in the microwave band, does indeed hold fluctuations, albeit small ones :

    Cosmic microwave background radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    An broad explanation how the voids between filaments are thought to have formed can be found in these two sources :

    Void (astronomy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Baryon acoustic oscillations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In a way though you are right in saying that there isn't any irrefutable evidence for any given theory in cosmology; there is only evidence in support of Big Bang-based models. I am also not stating that your model about anti-gravity is outright impossible; it is just that, all other things being equal, I would rather stick with Occam's Razor in saying that I find the simpler explanation more likely. The existence of exotic matter ( a prerequisite to anti-gravity ) just doesn't seem quite right with me, though I cannot 100% exclude the possibility. By the way, in your model, why can we not observe the exotic matter within those voids that would be needed to cause the anti-gravity ?
     

  22. #21 Antigravity originated from the negative energy(mass) 
    Forum Freshman icarus2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Are cosmic voids simply bubbles of anti-gravity? Are voids expanding and causing or assisting the expansion of the universe? If we measure the borders of voids will we find that the voids' expansions are compressing space and raising the temperature of space around the borders?

    Anti-gravity would push matter away, resulting in no stars, planets, etc inside a void, and that's what voids are.

    I like pseudo science .. it's the real thing.
    I almost agreed it. But in my opinion, antigravity originated from the negative energy(mass)
    1. Birth of the universe from zero energy state. (Computer Simulation)
    Birth of the Universe from Zero Energy State - Bigbang, negative energy,negative mass - YouTube

    This is a computer simulation that shows you that the universe led to the current structure of the universe with pair creation of positive energy and negative energy from the zero energy state.

    2. Assuming that negative mass and positive mass were born together at the beginning of universe, it satisfies the various problems that dark matter and dark energy possess~

    Important Report for Dark Energy and gravity negative mass negative energy dark matter - YouTube

    3. For characteristics of the negative mass, refer to below video.

    Negative mass, Dark matter, Dark Energy, Bullet Cluster, Antigravity-1 - YouTube
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    To the best of my knowledge there is no observational evidence anywhere of negative mass. If I am wrong, please provide a reference ? The voids you are referring to are far easier explained by density fluctuations in the early universe. No exotic forms of matter are needed.
    I thought the cosmic background radiation which was said to be solid proof of the big bang held no density fluctuatiions. Oh .. another slight modification to facts? Really, we make up our own fantasies and theories .. mine is that cosmic voids are anti-gravity bubbles. I can offer no more proof than can supporters of the Big Bang. All is open to individual assessment. We can believe whatever we find most substantial to ourselves without justification.
    Actually the background radiation, in the microwave band, does indeed hold fluctuations, albeit small ones :

    Cosmic microwave background radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    An broad explanation how the voids between filaments are thought to have formed can be found in these two sources :

    Void (astronomy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Baryon acoustic oscillations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In a way though you are right in saying that there isn't any irrefutable evidence for any given theory in cosmology; there is only evidence in support of Big Bang-based models. I am also not stating that your model about anti-gravity is outright impossible; it is just that, all other things being equal, I would rather stick with Occam's Razor in saying that I find the simpler explanation more likely. The existence of exotic matter ( a prerequisite to anti-gravity ) just doesn't seem quite right with me, though I cannot 100% exclude the possibility. By the way, in your model, why can we not observe the exotic matter within those voids that would be needed to cause the anti-gravity ?
    I apologize for saying the CMB had no fluctuations .. I hurry these posts because I have no internet access at home so have to rush through things. Yes, there are the small fluctuations found which are said to be evidence of the bang .. but more recent readings have found much larger fluctuations (no supporting url or reference of course) but if anyone was interested they should easily find references to the absence of CMB in the area of the largest void found, because if I remember correctly it was the absence that led to the discovery of the void. There should be no void, no absence, if Bing Bang was correct.

    I don't think exotic matter is necessary for anti-gravity .. anti-gravity bubbles would be the total absence of any kind of matter. I find your answers refreshing because you don't outright condemn the idea of anti-gravity, which is the standard response. You're a true thinking human.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Einstein never said that the speed of light is unalterable, he only said it is the same for all observers regardless of their frame of reference. There is a big difference between these two statements.
    Exactly. So why is it that almost every forum participant says he said C was unalterable?
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
     

  25. #24  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    icarus2,

    Yes, youtube is one of the most relaible sources of pseudoscince there is...
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    To the best of my knowledge there is no observational evidence anywhere of negative mass. If I am wrong, please provide a reference ? The voids you are referring to are far easier explained by density fluctuations in the early universe. No exotic forms of matter are needed.
    I thought the cosmic background radiation which was said to be solid proof of the big bang held no density fluctuatiions. Oh .. another slight modification to facts? Really, we make up our own fantasies and theories .. mine is that cosmic voids are anti-gravity bubbles. I can offer no more proof than can supporters of the Big Bang. All is open to individual assessment. We can believe whatever we find most substantial to ourselves without justification.
    Actually the background radiation, in the microwave band, does indeed hold fluctuations, albeit small ones :

    Cosmic microwave background radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    An broad explanation how the voids between filaments are thought to have formed can be found in these two sources :

    Void (astronomy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Baryon acoustic oscillations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In a way though you are right in saying that there isn't any irrefutable evidence for any given theory in cosmology; there is only evidence in support of Big Bang-based models. I am also not stating that your model about anti-gravity is outright impossible; it is just that, all other things being equal, I would rather stick with Occam's Razor in saying that I find the simpler explanation more likely. The existence of exotic matter ( a prerequisite to anti-gravity ) just doesn't seem quite right with me, though I cannot 100% exclude the possibility. By the way, in your model, why can we not observe the exotic matter within those voids that would be needed to cause the anti-gravity ?
    I apologize for saying the CMB had no fluctuations .. I hurry these posts because I have no internet access at home so have to rush through things. Yes, there are the small fluctuations found which are said to be evidence of the bang .. but more recent readings have found much larger fluctuations (no supporting url or reference of course) but if anyone was interested they should easily find references to the absence of CMB in the area of the largest void found, because if I remember correctly it was the absence that led to the discovery of the void. There should be no void, no absence, if Bing Bang was correct.

    I don't think exotic matter is necessary for anti-gravity .. anti-gravity bubbles would be the total absence of any kind of matter. I find your answers refreshing because you don't outright condemn the idea of anti-gravity, which is the standard response. You're a true thinking human.
    Thank you, I am only trying to apply scientific reasoning here. Anti-gravity is mathematically consistent with the Einstein Field Equation, but it does violate the "Positive Energy Condition" of General Relativity. Locally, though, it actually is physically possible to create a region of negative energy density using the Casimir Effect. This however is a small-scale quantum effect. On a large scale, like a void, you would definitely need exotic matter with negative mass, and at the moment there just isn't any physical evidence of a particle carrying negative mass. On the other hand though there is no physical law that says such a particle cannot exist.
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Thank you, I am only trying to apply scientific reasoning here. Anti-gravity is mathematically consistent with the Einstein Field Equation, but it does violate the "Positive Energy Condition" of General Relativity. Locally, though, it actually is physically possible to create a region of negative energy density using the Casimir Effect. This however is a small-scale quantum effect. On a large scale, like a void, you would definitely need exotic matter with negative mass, and at the moment there just isn't any physical evidence of a particle carrying negative mass. On the other hand though there is no physical law that says such a particle cannot exist.
    Excellent post, except I don't agree that exotic matter is necessary. Just my opinion though. If Dark Matter is as important and pervasive as theories say, then a simple absence of Dark Matter might allow a hollow 'blister' of anti-gravity. Anti-gravity might simply be the total absence of gravity. As it seems there can be nothing like a total absence in space, the total absence might form as anti-gravity energy. I doubt that though. I think temperature measurements would show higher temperatures at the edges of voids resulting from the pressure in the void compressing space.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
     

  28. #27  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Relativity is in serious doubt now that the repeated CERN experiment confirmed faster-than-light neutrinos. I can't help but be certain of anti-gravity as there seems to be an anti-particle for every particle, which may or may not be relevant, but gravity is theorized to consist of gravitons.
    As it is a theory that might be amended, it might need to be, but it is not correct yet to say it is in serious danger. As explained, some quantum effect or effect might be at work here. Relativity has been incredibly well tested and has passed every one of them.

    Gravitons, if they exist, will be it's own anti-particle, just as photons are. This means that even if anti-gravitons exist, they will not imply the existence of anti-gravity.

    We can believe whatever we find most substantial to ourselves without justification.
    You can certainly believe whatever you want without justification, which you evidentially are very prone to, but surely you can't think this is a wise thing to do? You have shown remarkable ignorance on a number of topics, but you don't see it as a problem. Why not? Don't you care about the truth? Or are you more comfortable with creating your own bubble of make-believe? These are serious questions.

    I can offer no more proof than can supporters of the Big Bang. All is open to individual assessment.
    You clearly have very little understanding of the big bang theory and how it came to be so well regarded. Despite what you might think though, it is open to amendment, but not by the brand of "science' you are attempting. You looking at something and coming to your own conclusions based on ignorance and what you want to see is most certainly not science. You clinging to your made-up conclusions despite honest correction is not a good character trait. I can't for the life of me imagine why you would think it is.

    I read Einstein's General Theory in a little book of his theories straight from the horse's mouth so to speak. I seem to understand it as well as most people on these forums.
    I have not seen any evidence of that.

    I think they begin their books that way because they believe in Big Bang instead of science......The more I learn about the theory the more it tells me it's false.
    And the more you talk about it, the less regard anyone has for your warped imaginings.

    If Dark Matter is as important and pervasive as theories say, then a simple absence of Dark Matter might allow a hollow 'blister' of anti-gravity. Anti-gravity might simply be the total absence of gravity. As it seems there can be nothing like a total absence in space, the total absence might form as anti-gravity energy. I doubt that though. I think temperature measurements would show higher temperatures at the edges of voids resulting from the pressure in the void compressing space.
    The absence of gravity means there are no gravitational forces present, but there are no such regions in space. If you had really understood anything about gravity, you would know that. Gravity has theoretically infinite reach, even into these voids. Dark matter is something else. I don't even know why you brought it up.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Relativity is in serious doubt now that the repeated CERN experiment confirmed faster-than-light neutrinos. I can't help but be certain of anti-gravity as there seems to be an anti-particle for every particle, which may or may not be relevant, but gravity is theorized to consist of gravitons.
    As it is a theory that might be amended, it might need to be, but it is not correct yet to say it is in serious danger. As explained, some quantum effect or effect might be at work here. Relativity has been incredibly well tested and has passed every one of them.

    Gravitons, if they exist, will be it's own anti-particle, just as photons are. This means that even if anti-gravitons exist, they will not imply the existence of anti-gravity.

    We can believe whatever we find most substantial to ourselves without justification.
    You can certainly believe whatever you want without justification, which you evidentially are very prone to, but surely you can't think this is a wise thing to do? You have shown remarkable ignorance on a number of topics, but you don't see it as a problem. Why not? Don't you care about the truth? Or are you more comfortable with creating your own bubble of make-believe? These are serious questions.

    I can offer no more proof than can supporters of the Big Bang. All is open to individual assessment.
    You clearly have very little understanding of the big bang theory and how it came to be so well regarded. Despite what you might think though, it is open to amendment, but not by the brand of "science' you are attempting. You looking at something and coming to your own conclusions based on ignorance and what you want to see is most certainly not science. You clinging to your made-up conclusions despite honest correction is not a good character trait. I can't for the life of me imagine why you would think it is.

    I read Einstein's General Theory in a little book of his theories straight from the horse's mouth so to speak. I seem to understand it as well as most people on these forums.
    I have not seen any evidence of that.

    I think they begin their books that way because they believe in Big Bang instead of science......The more I learn about the theory the more it tells me it's false.
    And the more you talk about it, the less regard anyone has for your warped imaginings.

    If Dark Matter is as important and pervasive as theories say, then a simple absence of Dark Matter might allow a hollow 'blister' of anti-gravity. Anti-gravity might simply be the total absence of gravity. As it seems there can be nothing like a total absence in space, the total absence might form as anti-gravity energy. I doubt that though. I think temperature measurements would show higher temperatures at the edges of voids resulting from the pressure in the void compressing space.
    The absence of gravity means there are no gravitational forces present, but there are no such regions in space. If you had really understood anything about gravity, you would know that. Gravity has theoretically infinite reach, even into these voids. Dark matter is something else. I don't even know why you brought it up.
    I'm so glad you understand so much.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
     

  30. #29  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    What kind of an answer is that? Despite what you think, I am not laying into you just for my own amusement. I am genuinely concerned when people display the kind of woolly thinking you have been doing and do so proudly and even more so when it is done by the more senior members of society that might serve as role models to youngsters. What kind of a value system do you have that carries that way of thinking as a positive? Again, these are serious questions. Please respond in kind.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    What kind of an answer is that? Despite what you think, I am not laying into you just for my own amusement. I am genuinely concerned when people display the kind of woolly thinking you have been doing and do so proudly and even more so when it is done by the more senior members of society that might serve as role models to youngsters. What kind of a value system do you have that carries that way of thinking as a positive? Again, these are serious questions. Please respond in kind.
    You were laying into me? Sorry, I never noticed. But I am amused. Your concern is appreciated, but misguided. My way of thinking IS a positive, because it relegates convention to where it belongs, in the realm of possibility but not hard proof or the last word. Original thought is a virtue. Didn't Jimi Hendrix say, "you don't believe everything you see and hear, do you?" Hendrix was such a creative influence on thinking that the convention had him murdered to preserve the convention. Of course, you don't have to believe that just because I said it, but you really should learn to value other people's opinion and thoughts.

    P.S. Why don't you take an infrared reading of space bordering the voids to see if they're being compressed? I can't do it because I can't get my thermometre to the region.

    thanks for the thought about gravity having infinite reach even to the voids .. the conflict between gravity and anti-gravity might just add to the heat which measurements will, I am sure, reveal.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    I thought the cosmic background radiation which was said to be solid proof of the big bang held no density fluctuatiions. Oh .. another slight modification to facts? Really, we make up our own fantasies and theories .. mine is that cosmic voids are anti-gravity bubbles. I can offer no more proof than can supporters of the Big Bang. All is open to individual assessment. We can believe whatever we find most substantial to ourselves without justification.
    Sounds like you need to go and learn a bit more about the big bang theory and the large body of evidence for it.
    Do you mean the large body of speculation and fabrication (such as expansion, generated to fill a void, so to speak?) We could throw this stuff back and forth all day.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
     

  33. #32  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    You were laying into me? Sorry, I never noticed.
    I was restraining myself.

    Your concern is appreciated, but misguided. My way of thinking IS a positive, because it relegates convention to where it belongs, in the realm of possibility but not hard proof or the last word. Original thought is a virtue.
    There is a reason scientific convention exists, a reason the scientific method exists. It is currently the best way to ensure that real steps are made, instead of being tainted by personal bias, wishful thinking and a lot of other human traits that cloud true scientific advancement. It is not a perfect system, but it is the best we have.

    Of course enquiring minds and varied viewpoints are important, but without a system to make use of it in a constructive way, you get the kind of frankly useless speculation you are engaging in. You are not simply coming up with new ideas that could be investigated, you are ignoring established science and then fully believing whatever you come up with from your base of ignorance. That is NOT a virtue or productive. Why would you think working from such a base of profound ignorance of science can produce anything meaningful? It is as fruitless as a child's wild imagination running amok, but made even worse when they are the imaginings of an ignorant adult that then fully believe those imaginings. You are engaging in fantasy, nothing more. Ignorance in itself is a problem, but we are all ignorant to a degree about a lot of things and the virtue is in recognising your ignorance. You need to realise the nature of your ignorance and human failings with humility. Only then will you have a solid foundation to start and try to improve on it. Where you lose all sight of logic and reason is when you for some reason almost see your ignorance as a good thing and your fantasies as reality. Those are traits of the insane.

    P.S. Why don't you take an infrared reading of space bordering the voids to see if they're being compressed? I can't do it because I can't get my thermometre to the region.
    We are talking about a void here, not a dense gas cloud. How could nothing heat up? What would produce the heat, when there is nothing there? The voids are simply that; voids. They are not bubbles of some other magic substance we have no reason to even suspect exists.

    thanks for the thought about gravity having infinite reach even to the voids .. the conflict between gravity and anti-gravity might just add to the heat which measurements will, I am sure, reveal.
    Again, how can you be sure of that, when this whole idea of yours has been conjured up from nothing? How do you equate your imaginings with reality? Like I said, these are traits of insanity.

    Why do you think there is such a thing as anti-gravity in any case? Do you think there is such a thing as anti-light as well? Yes or no, why?

    Do you mean the large body of speculation and fabrication (such as expansion, generated to fill a void, so to speak?) We could throw this stuff back and forth all day.
    What possible reason could you have for calling expansion "speculation"? You don't know anything about cosmology. This much is clear. The only reason this would be thrown back and forth, is because trying to get you to understand something is like trying to teach an ape about cosmology. He simply will never get it, and it is patently clear that you are beyond help as well. You are making a fool of yourself. Seriously.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  34. #33  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Do you mean the large body of speculation and fabrication (such as expansion, generated to fill a void, so to speak?) We could throw this stuff back and forth all day.
    If someone had invented expansion, it would be speculation. However, it is based on observation, measurements, evidence.

    OK. There is an element of "interpretation" required to make sense of the observed facts. Different interpretations or hypotheses have been tried to account for things like the red-shift of galaxies. None of these work as well as the idea that the universe is expanding. Nicely, the expansion was also predicted by general relativity. It also explains numerous other observations.

    No speculation or fabrication required.
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    You were laying into me? Sorry, I never noticed.
    I was restraining myself.

    Your concern is appreciated, but misguided. My way of thinking IS a positive, because it relegates convention to where it belongs, in the realm of possibility but not hard proof or the last word. Original thought is a virtue.
    There is a reason scientific convention exists, a reason the scientific method exists. It is currently the best way to ensure that real steps are made, instead of being tainted by personal bias, wishful thinking and a lot of other human traits that cloud true scientific advancement. It is not a perfect system, but it is the best we have.

    Of course enquiring minds and varied viewpoints are important, but without a system to make use of it in a constructive way, you get the kind of frankly useless speculation you are engaging in. You are not simply coming up with new ideas that could be investigated, you are ignoring established science and then fully believing whatever you come up with from your base of ignorance. That is NOT a virtue or productive. Why would you think working from such a base of profound ignorance of science can produce anything meaningful? It is as fruitless as a child's wild imagination running amok, but made even worse when they are the imaginings of an ignorant adult that then fully believe those imaginings. You are engaging in fantasy, nothing more. Ignorance in itself is a problem, but we are all ignorant to a degree about a lot of things and the virtue is in recognising your ignorance. You need to realise the nature of your ignorance and human failings with humility. Only then will you have a solid foundation to start and try to improve on it. Where you lose all sight of logic and reason is when you for some reason almost see your ignorance as a good thing and your fantasies as reality. Those are traits of the insane.

    P.S. Why don't you take an infrared reading of space bordering the voids to see if they're being compressed? I can't do it because I can't get my thermometre to the region.
    We are talking about a void here, not a dense gas cloud. How could nothing heat up? What would produce the heat, when there is nothing there? The voids are simply that; voids. They are not bubbles of some other magic substance we have no reason to even suspect exists.

    thanks for the thought about gravity having infinite reach even to the voids .. the conflict between gravity and anti-gravity might just add to the heat which measurements will, I am sure, reveal.
    Again, how can you be sure of that, when this whole idea of yours has been conjured up from nothing? How do you equate your imaginings with reality? Like I said, these are traits of insanity.

    Why do you think there is such a thing as anti-gravity in any case? Do you think there is such a thing as anti-light as well? Yes or no, why?

    Do you mean the large body of speculation and fabrication (such as expansion, generated to fill a void, so to speak?) We could throw this stuff back and forth all day.
    What possible reason could you have for calling expansion "speculation"? You don't know anything about cosmology. This much is clear. The only reason this would be thrown back and forth, is because trying to get you to understand something is like trying to teach an ape about cosmology. He simply will never get it, and it is patently clear that you are beyond help as well. You are making a fool of yourself. Seriously.
    I take it you never saw the movie Planet of the Apes?
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
     

  36. #35  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Yes? And?
    .............
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Then why do you insult them by comparing me to them? They are obviously quite intelligent, right? You had better beware when they take over the planet.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
     

  38. #37  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    You do realize Planet of the Apes is fiction, right?
     

  39. #38  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Then why do you insult them by comparing me to them? They are obviously quite intelligent, right? You had better beware when they take over the planet.
    Will you get serious for a second here? Why won't you answer my questions? Is it because you know your position is untenable?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Then why do you insult them by comparing me to them? They are obviously quite intelligent, right? You had better beware when they take over the planet.
    Will you get serious for a second here? Why won't you answer my questions? Is it because you know your position is untenable?
    I have answered your questions. You simply cannot accept my answers but that's okay. I won't repeat my answers because I don't like to go around in circles forever, kind of like apes riding bicycles round a circus ring. I don't know about you, but I get dizzy, and besides that my knees can't take the stress anymore. Do you bicycle?
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
     

  41. #40  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,064
    So, again you confirm that you can not actually answer the questions posed to you, so you try to hide behind obfuscation and hyperbole.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    So, again you confirm that you can not actually answer the questions posed to you, so you try to hide behind obfuscation and hyperbole.
    Would you feel better if I hid behind words like adumbrate ?

    At least I, unlike you, provide a link so that readers will know what the heckity boo you are talking about. You must be a big fan of O. Henry O. Henry Award - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia as am I. Surely we can set aside our aberration, alteration, anomaly, antithesis, asymmetry, change, characteristic, contrariety, contrariness, contrast, departure, deviation, digression, discongruity, discrepancy, disparity, dissemblance, distinction, divergence, diversity, exception, heterogeneity, idiosyncrasy, inequality, irregularity, nonconformity, opposition, particularity, peculiarity, separateness, separation, singularity, unconformity, unlikeness, unorthodoxness, variance, variation, variety
    for the sake of alleviation, amusement, assuagement, diversion, enjoyment, fun, leisure, loosening, mitigation, pleasure, recreation, refreshment, relief, repose, requiescence, rest ?
    Last edited by Aristarchus in Exile; December 9th, 2011 at 01:38 PM.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
     

  43. #42  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,064
    So, again you confirm that you can not actually answer the questions posed to you, so you try to hide behind obfuscation and hyperbole.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    So, again you confirm that you can not actually answer the questions posed to you, so you try to hide behind obfuscation and hyperbole.
    So again you cannot admit the questions have been answered and resort to cut and paste.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
     

  45. #44  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,064
    Multiple people are saying they have not been answered, so at the very least you need to clarify the answers you have provided.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  46. #45  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    So, again you confirm that you can not actually answer the questions posed to you, so you try to hide behind obfuscation and hyperbole.
    Would you feel better if I hid behind words like adumbrate ?

    At least I, unlike you, provide a link so that readers will know what the heckity boo you are talking about. You must be a big fan of O. Henry O. Henry Award - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia as am I. Surely we can set aside our aberration, alteration, anomaly, antithesis, asymmetry, change, characteristic, contrariety, contrariness, contrast, departure, deviation, digression, discongruity, discrepancy, disparity, dissemblance, distinction, divergence, diversity, exception, heterogeneity, idiosyncrasy, inequality, irregularity, nonconformity, opposition, particularity, peculiarity, separateness, separation, singularity, unconformity, unlikeness, unorthodoxness, variance, variation, variety
    for the sake of alleviation, amusement, assuagement, diversion, enjoyment, fun, leisure, loosening, mitigation, pleasure, recreation, refreshment, relief, repose, requiescence, rest ?
    What the hell is all this nonsense? You have clearly gone off your rocker and don't even appear to understand the questions posed to you.

    This going nowhere. Thread locked.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

Similar Threads

  1. Idea for an anti gravity drive.
    By mmatt9876 in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: November 19th, 2013, 06:11 AM
  2. Origin of Inertia. Inertial Propulsion a.k.a. Anti-Gravity
    By Dr3adLoX in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 23rd, 2010, 07:30 AM
  3. Anti-Gravity Question?
    By diablos444 in forum Physics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: December 21st, 2009, 11:30 PM
  4. Anti-Gravity and 'Free' Energy?
    By benjward in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 16th, 2009, 05:49 AM
  5. Anti gravity field? o.O
    By anarchypower in forum Physics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 16th, 2008, 07:41 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •