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. >> >>
