Sorry; If you saw this previously, apparently I made a typo in the URL. It should be;
https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.07962 On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:43 PM CB Sites <cbsit...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > > > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 11:23 AM CB Sites <cbsit...@gmail.com> 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_baryons >> and 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. >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:20 AM Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> 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. >>> >>>
