Jones Beene is correct in that this should be falsifiable. I think LIGO could possibly detect this. Let's say a gravitational wave was moving across a void in the deep reaches of space where a negative mass value might be hiding. Wouldn't a gravitational wave be dampened if it was on the opposite side of the LIGO detector's direction? Would there be a dampened gravitational wave signal from far distances not seen or accounted for compared to closer object signals?
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:17 PM Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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_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. > > > 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. > > > >
