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 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.
The concept of "negative energy" has meaning only within the models. In order for a phenomenon to exist, it has to have parameters to measure. Energy itself is, when it comes down to it, measurable only through movement (change in space and time of something). For example, "nuclear energy" has no meaning until there is a decay, at which time we measure the momentum of the "decay products" and work backwards to find the "nuclear energy" that was a "potential energy" stored within the material. Thermal energy is the same thing, just lattice vibrations (periodic changes in space and time of the atoms, or chain of atoms).
"Negative energy" has no such parameters. It isn't even something that can be defined, much less measured, not even in theory. I mean, what does "negative movement" mean? Other than going in the "opposite direction" (which is not applicable here) It doesn't mean anything at all. It would probably be better to call it "imaginary movement" (literally and mathematically), where 1/2mv^2 gives a negative value (1/2m(iv)^2)
GR says that the curvature of spacetime is determined by the energy contained within it. If the curvature of "empty space" is indeed flat (which is by no means certain, even locally), then that flat curvature is determined by the Zero Point Energy contained within it. The zero point energy is defined to be zero. Any energy in a space that would be less than that would be by definition of the model less than zero. This "less than zero" energy would expand space when filtered through the model, thus, from the perspective of all models, it is negative energy. So not only is it negative by definition, it is negative with regards to how all of our models (all of physics) react.
All of these statements are "arguments from the model". Your objection is philosophical. But the only philosophical premise from which to object is to state that "there is no such thing as negative energy period, because there is no phenomenon to attach to it."
If you want to make that objection, I'm good with that. That doesn't negate the definitions of negative energy nor the models that support that definition.
That is most certainly not all I am saying. That does seem to be all you are hearing however. You have selective hearing, and very set beliefs. That's OK, but it does make it difficult to have a conversation with you.
I do not think you are an agent provocateur. I can't imagine anyone pursuing a conversation like this just for that purpose. I do however think you are a True Believer. Until you see overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you are quite set in your certainties. Nothing I say can change that, because you selectively listen, filtered through your true beliefs. For example:
These are true statements, however, what you are missing is that the system that encourages these behaviors were all created by the same person (Rockefeller). All of science funding, all of science publication, all of academia, all of science industry, all of government science funding and investigation all have the exact same source: Rockefeller. Even the agencies that create the NDAs that people must sign for Top Secret clearance were created by Rockefeller.
That isn't in any way believable, but the evidence is overwhelming. Until you are willing to look at the evidence, you can only conceive of a world that exists within the boundaries of what you've seen. My report shows the beginnings of that evidence. What is there right now shows fairly clearly that there is one single corporation in the world, and a single body of people that run it. It is not yet complete. It's not even half way done, but it is a very clear start into that evidence.
Next up (hopefully very soon, I'm putting it together now) is an exposure into what I stated above: the creation of academia and science in general. The system is designed to control science, everything filtered through a single controlling body. Looking into the actual development and "debunking" of Cold Fusion is an excellent example of this control structure. The two people that were assigned by the government to investigate corroborating evidence after the initial exposure by Fleischman and Pons have direct ties to Rockefeller (through their academic funding and previous employment). That by itself is far from a complete argument. It isn't even scratching the surface, but this pattern of direct financial ties to Rockefeller (usually through the Rockefeller Foundation or the Carnegie Corporation) exists in every situation where the narrative was led in the "wrong direction".
That's not intended to convince you. Of course it won't. A complete argument takes time and direct evidence. That is what my report is for. Academia, science, and medicine are next. If you want to see the argument and evidence, you will have to read my report.