ANOTHER SMOKING GUN: Maui Fire Breaks SCIENCE as we know it…
(www.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (54)
sorted by:
I think you have an insuperable obstacle in the absence of "negative matter." (I don't think you mean antimatter.)
I do not mean antimatter, I mean mass that "pushes" instead of "pulls" (to expand space instead of contract it). But it doesn't necessarily have to be negative mass. It can be "negative energy," because it is "energy" that shapes space according to GR, not mass (mass works too because mass is just energy). A "negative energy" is seen in the Casimir effect, and in Hawking radiation (one observed, one theoretical) so it's not without precedence. What we call "Dark Energy" could also potentially be a negative energy and it certainly seems to expand space. Our cosmological models say "it's not negative energy it's negative pressure" (even though it acts exactly like negative energy), but quite frankly, our cosmological models are all wrong. Everyone knows they are wrong, but they hold onto them with both hands and won't let go mostly I think to keep their jobs (paraphrased from my graduate cosmology professor). That's an aside however.
Except for the Casimir effect (which is an observation), these are all "arguments from the model," not arguments from actual evidence. The models we have, have nothing to do with how things really are, they are just models. They are useful, but what can really happen (all possible phenomena) is unknown and unknowable if we rely on the models themselves. Every time we get a new observation that wasn't predicted by a previous model, we make a new model or modify an existing one by injecting new axioms, which is really the same thing an entirely new model. We call it "the same model," (the Standard Model has fundamentally changed numerous times e.g.) but it's really not, because it required completely new premises (and subsequent math) to fit observation.
So yes, I don't have any idea what "negative matter" might mean as an observable, but to create a warp bubble or a wormhole (according to GR) all we really need to be able to do is expand space. We know how to contract space pretty well, just put mass/energy into it. We don't know how to expand space very well, but we have observations that suggest that it does that fairly often on its own. Just because we don't have very good models that allow us to engineer the expansion of space on command, doesn't mean it can't be done, nor does it mean someone else hasn't figured out how to do it.
I said I did not think you were referring to antimatter, which exists. The Casimir effect has nothing to do with "negative energy." It has to do with the restriction of allowable wavelengths in the Casimir gap, creating an imbalance in the vacuum fluctuation of photons. As the gap gets smaller, the allowable wavelengths are increasingly excluded and the differential pressure is perceived / measured as an increasing force. In some ways, it is similar to the Van der Waals force, as an effect that results from close contact of matter.
I have no particular love for any of the popular cosmology models. There is good evidence against them all (see Halton Arp's work), including the suggestion that we actually have a steady-state universe. Fred Hoyle may be vindicated. Frederick Kantor also has an alternative explanation of the distance-redshift relationship, based on the loss of positional information of the long-distance propagating photon. (Kantor put his theory to the test by using it to predict the masses of all the known leptons. He was accurate to within small fractions of a percent.)
It follows that I have no credence in "Dark Matter" or "Dark Energy." I had an interesting conversation with a practicing astronomer on the subject of cosmology, and we were of a like mind about the necessity of scientific honesty including the recognition of "We don't know." Too many people get wrapped up in hypotheses without any evidence to back them up. As a result of this cultish captivity, a true pioneer like Arp was summarily denied observation time because he was following an open-minded pursuit of truth that was not based on the "standard model."
The way the math works, the Casimir effect is a negative energy density.
I have seen some steady state models, some are interesting. I had not heard of this however. I will have to look it up.
I don't think there is anything wrong with pursuing your ideas tenaciously, even if the evidence is lacking. The problem comes from not allowing yourself to see what evidence there is that may be to the contrary of your suppositions. Some of the most interesting shit has come from people being stubborn, albeit with enough appreciation of the reality of their situation that they were able to work honestly.
I used to think this was the case too. I no longer do. Science has been purposefully put into a box. It is completely controlled. The next part of my report will make that perfectly clear beyond a reasonable doubt. All of science has been purposefully misguided to not look in certain directions. It's kinda amazing, but the evidence is overwhelming.
The physics of the Casimir effect don't involve any "negative energy." I suppose you can say that the space in the Casimir gap has a deficit of zero-point energy, but that's not the presence of "negative energy." (By the way, if you consider the DeSitter categories of universes, the one with zero net energy is one that begins and then expands indefinitely. This conforms to the idea of a quantum event having zero energy but perpetual duration.)
Kantor addressed the distance-redshift relationship (among a great many other things). Arp addressed the validity of that relationship being interpreted as Doppler shift, and proposed a very startling reinterpretation of the redshift, quasars, and B Lac galaxies---backed up by statistical analysis.
Pursue your ideas as you will. All you are saying is that you have no way to tell a promising idea from a complete loser. Or logical fallacies from legitimate induction or deduction. Arp's insights were all driven by observational data. Kantor had a productive premise and worked it out by example to see if it was a covering theory. I mention them because they come easily to mind. There are others.
Science is performed by human beings. Human beings are prone to corruption of honesty by professional, social, and financial inducements to "go along to get along." This is ancient history. If a direction has promise, it will be looked at. Cold fusion has been deemed bogus by the U.S. scientific establishment, but it is a matter of sufficient curiosity in the rest of the world that there are companies in business to make and sell laboratory instrumentation and apparatus specific to that line of investigation. I will not be surprised to see something emerge---but I will be surprised if it emerges from the U.S.