A negative mass theory like this should be falsifiable in a straightforward way
using an ultra-precision scale and ultra-high vacuum system to measure the very
tiny decrease in weight of a vacuum chamber as it is being pumped. The whole
system could be mounted on levered arms.
The drop in mass as the vacuum increases should be out of proportion with the
drop in mass at higher pressure. IOW the last few atoms removed should seem to
weigh proportionately more, no?
From: CB Sites
Wow. I just read a science brief on a new theory that explains Dark-matter and
Dark-energy in a very odd way. Ponder this one for a moment. Empty space has
a negative mass. Not zero mass but something with a minus sign in front of it!
This is a new model worked out by Dr. Jamie Farnes of the Oxford e-Research
Centre published in 'Astronomy and Astrophysics'. So because empty space has
negative mass, it has negative gravity and thus the universe is accelerating as
it expands from negative gravity.
Maybe CNF has tapped into negative mass in the empty space of the lattice
voids? Or maybe it's more like stuff from the old movie 'Flubber'. Either
way, it's an interesting perspective on Dark matter and Dark energy.
CB Sites wrote:
Sometimes you stumble on to a story from a source you don't expect. Forbes had
this write up on Erik Verlinde's theory(s) and I think it will give insight to
others why Dark matter may simply be an emergent effect by the quantum
occupation of space/time by matter. No hard details but a nice overview from
Forbes;
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/28/is-dark-matter-about-to-be-killed-by-emergent-gravity/#70bcb0d05359
That doesn't mean that something couldn't be oscillating in neutrons makeup.
It would just be hard to explain give how baryons decay and morph. See;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_baryonsand
https://www.revolvy.com/page/List-of-particles is also interesting.
https://www.revolvy.com/page/List-of-baryons points to the problem with dark
matter. If it's a baryon, it doesn't fit with anything we know.
Jones Beene wrote:
I like Erik Verlinde's theory and papers. Definitely worth a read.
Some of his thinking is consistent with the "mirror matter" proposition, so
long as the mystery particles are generally located in a parallel dimension, so
that they interact with normal matter minimally no matter how they are
characterized... and which dimension has remarkable similarity to Dirac's
reciprocal space. To claim that something (mysterious) is an emergent property
of something else (better known) is framing the problem philosophically and of
limited value in pointing to a real-world application unless the particles are
literally emerging from one dimension into another dimension - aka: mirror
matter oscillation.
Admittedly, most of this is well above my pay grade to comprehend - so unless
there is a particularly useful aspect of any theory which can be incorporated
into LENR experiment, it is more like flag-waving. When a researcher says he
has evidence that 1% of any neutron beam oscillates so as to exhibit the
properties of a different kind of neutron ... and can decay in our 3-space even
if came from another space - that sounds like a detail which can be useful
somehow and incorporated into experiment. The more one looks at the
Bush/Eagleton rubidium experiment, the more it seems to do this (despite the
inventors being completely wrong on their own explanation),
In LENR it seems there is a high probability that hydrogen morphs into
"something else" when confined in a metal matrix - and which species may not be
the result of nuclear fusion per se. Having a better understanding of the
properties of that particle would be important - especially if it has some
broader relevance to a Universal phenomena like dark matter.
From: CB Sites
Every story on dark matter simply leaves me confused and perplexed. The first
question I would ask is what is the spin of dark matter. Is it a fermion or
boson? If it's a fermion, it has to interact and if it interacts why is it
nearly impossible to see the interaction. If it's a Boson, then it would tend
to undergo condensation, and you would have a bose star or a dark matter black
hole. That too should be easy to observe as a gravitational lens without a
source of matter to create it. Both have led me to conclude that dark matter
is part of the concept of Emergent Gravity (Entropic Gravity). Emergent
gravity (and emergent dark matter) doesn't have spin but would effect matter
gravitationally and be associated with matter since it appears out of the
warping of small amounts space/time by the occupation of matter and the
entropic warping of space-time from matter. This is all from Erik
Verlinde's theory. It's good stuff and I don't understand why it's not the
leading candidate for a dark matter explanation.
