[ExI] Dark mass = matter that is "elsewhere"?

John Clark johnkclark at gmail.com
Fri Sep 15 19:37:15 UTC 2017


On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Stuart LaForge <avant at sollegro.com> wrote:
    ​

> ​> ​
> all particles are also waves. And the Equipartition Theorem works for
> ​ ​
> waves as well.
>

Actually  the Equipartition Theorem failed to predict how blackbody
radiation works, it said  anything above absolute zero should radiate an
infinite amount of energy and obviously that's not correct, in fact it was
this very failure that forced Max Planck to dream up quantum theory.


> ​> ​
> The beginning eigenstate effectively had an energy and entropy of zero
> ​ ​
> because both rely on differences between two or more states to have
> ​ ​
> meaning.
> ​ ​
> A single state with no other states to compare it to has zero
> ​ ​
> energy and entropy.


I
​ would​
say in that situation energy and entropy would be undefined not zero.
​ ​
And we've known for 90 years that at the very largest scale, the
cosmological scale, if Spacetime is curved
​ ​
then
​ ​
energy is not conserved
​ ​
under
​ ​
General
​ ​
Relativity. This is because Noether's Theorem
​ ​
tells us that the conservation of energy is equivalent to time
​ ​
translation invariance, that is to say the fundamental laws that determine
how things move do not change with time; but if
​ ​
Spacetime is curved then they do change, so energy is not
​ ​
conserved. For example consider all the photons in interstellar space, as
space expands with time the number of photons remains the same but each
individual photon is redshifted and
​ ​
thus
​ ​
has less energy than it did before.
​ ​
Much more recently physicists discovered
​ ​
it works the opposite way for Dark Energy because the vacuum energy
​ ​
of
​ ​
empty space
​ ​
remains the same but the total amount of empty space increases so the total
amount of energy in the
​ ​
universe increases too. However nobody
​ ​
needed to rewrite physics textbooks 90 years ago because energy is conserved
​ ​
locally
​ ​
if Spacetime is flat as it is in Newtonian physics.

​And this has been confirmed experimentally,  the percentage ​of
the various elements that comprise ordinary matter depends on how fast the
universe was expanding during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang, and
that depends on the changing radiation energy density of the universe. The
calculated percentage of elements and the observed values are almost
identical.


> ​> ​
> One of the solutions it yielded was a universe where radius is a function
> ​ ​
> of the universe's density. It starts out at zero density and radius,
> ​ ​
> increases in density and radius gradually through a flex point early on.
> ​ ​
> Then as the density approaches an assymptote at located at twice the
> ​ ​
> critical density Dc = 3H^2/(8*pi*G), the radius shoots up to infinity!
>

I'm very suspicious of that H term.  It may be called "The Hubble constant
​
" but it's not constant, the name is a historical accident coined at a time
when everybody thought  the rate of expansion has never changed, or at
least not changed by much. But we now know
​ ​
the rate of expansion of the universe has never been
​ ​
even close to being
​​
constant, very early the expansion rate was enormous then it slowed down by
a lot and continued to slow down for about 8 billion years, and then
​ ​
about 6 billion years ago it started accelerating again. Right now we say
the Hubble
​ ​
"constant"
​ ​
is 160 km/sec per million-light-year
​s​
,
​ ​
but that figure will change, by how much nobody is quite sure.

​> ​
> Communicating using gravity is patently ridiculous.


​The sun communicates with the Earth with gravity telling it to keep moving
in an elliptical path, but the sun as it was 8 minutes ago or less is not
telling the Earth anything because that region of Spacetime is not causally
connected to anything on the Earth as it is right now, but it will be in 8
minutes.



> ​> ​
> The energy required to
> ​ ​
> generate gravity waves far exceeds the energy to just visit in person and
> ​ ​
> deliver the message yourself. Of course if I wanted to send a message into
> ​ ​
> the past, somehow ringing a black hole like a bell would be how I would do
> ​ ​
> it.
>

The energy required is not the issue, ​
​gravity
 waves don't travel faster than light, and sending messages into the past
creates logical contradictions.​ Even
quantum
​
entanglement
​ won't let you communicate faster than light. ​

​> ​
> In any case it seems that gravity/dark energy somehow connect causally
> disconnected parts of the universe.


​If those regions of Spacetime are causally connected then something must
travel ​faster than light, then you can use that something to send messages
into the past, and they you're in big BIG logical trouble.


>
​> ​
> When I mathematically modelled dark energy and causal cells, I came up
> ​ ​
> with some very interesting discoveries. Dark energy and gravity are part
> ​ ​
> of the same scalar potential field and related vector field. I have
> ​ ​
> equations for these fields but ascii text is not the best medium to convey
> ​ ​
> vector field equations.The point is they are the same kind of force!


​Gravity is attractive, Dark Energy is repulsive. Gravity gets weaker as
the universe expands and the density of matter becomes less , but unlike
gravity Dark Energy does not originate from matter but seems to be a
property of space itself, so it never gets diluted regardless of how empty
the universe gets.    ​

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20170915/5fe8a072/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list