It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bimetric Relativity, Twin Universe Cosmology, Negative Energy

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

Light becomes bent in a strong gravitational field. For one thing to effect another they must be related in some manner, whether your photons theory likes it or not.




posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: AthlonSavage

A strong gravitational field bends spacetime. Since lights follows the fabric of spacetime, then any deviation of spacetime will result in a proportional bend in the trajectory of light.

You are seeking a link formula that makes no sense. Saying

"Do you know a way of deriving a formula which combines the energy mass equation with the inverse law of gravity? "

is like saying

"Do you know a way of deriving a formula which combines the thoughts of a car's driver with the shape of Earth's topological features? "




posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne




A strong gravitational field bends spacetime. Since lights follows the fabric of spacetime, then any deviation of spacetime will result in a proportional bend in the trajectory of light.


Your speaking as if this is fact. The fact is this is a unproven theory. Its a theory, period.

If you believes its been proven conclusively place the evidence here for us to scrutinize.
edit on 27-4-2015 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: AthlonSavage

You are right, it is a theory.

But are you sure there is no evidences whatsoever to support it?

en.wikipedia.org...

I personally am open to the idea that GR could be wrong, but then you would have to come up with a theory as successful as (if not better than) GR.




edit on 27-4-2015 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
a reply to: swanne

Your speaking as if this is fact. The fact is this is a unproven theory. Its a theory, period.

Well it is one of the best tested theories in physics so give it a little credit. However, I've always had a bit of a distaste for general relativity so I can understand your position. The ironic thing about the theory I have presented here is that it basically looks at what happens when you have negative mass within a general relativity framework. By combining some of Einsteins most essential ideas about space-time with the idea of negative energy, the outcome is the Twin Universe Model, and I think that's absolutely amazing.
edit on 27/4/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Thanks for sharing another awesome thread.

I can't seem to get my head around time moving in the opposite direction in this mirror universe though. What would this mirror universe look like if a model were created to show it? Is there one?

I was under the impression that we're not very sure what was going on before the Big Bang, so how could we have a universe with time moving in the opposite direction from the point of the Big Bang?

Or am I getting too wrapped around the axle and missing something?
edit on 27-4-2015 by watchitburn because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   
I really enjoy reading this thread.

I was thanking about an example of this and I came up with blood in a the blood steam. Imagine the galaxies are the blood cells flowing throw the fluid of the blood stream. Hopefully I'm making sense lol.

I was also wondering if this could be where we get the idea of time from where the past and the future meets to create the present.



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: watchitburn


I can't seem to get my head around time moving in the opposite direction in this mirror universe though. What would this mirror universe look like if a model were created to show it? Is there one?

Well it should already be obvious from what I have explained so far. The twin universe is full of negative matter which doesn't clump together like normal matter so it should remain in a gaseous state. However it's also important to remember that both universes can still interact via gravity, so you end up with cavities in the negative matter where our positive galaxies are located. Essentially the matter in the twin universe would look almost like the inverse of our positive universe. Once again the 1995 paper provides a nice little picture to show the difference:



I was under the impression that we're not very sure what was going on before the Big Bang, so how could we have a universe with time moving in the opposite direction from the point of the Big Bang?

It's not quite that simple because like I said both universes are able to interact with each other via the force of gravity. Even though it seems like both universes should be completely isolated that is not the case. The theory doesn't exactly say that something happened before the Big Bang, it just says that time will flow out of the Big Bang in two different directions. It's probably better to think about it in terms of entropy. That last article I quoted in my OP explains the idea from a thermodynamic perspective by analyzing the way entropy and gravity relate to each other.

Personally I like to think of it the same way I've always thought of it: negative mass causes space-time to bend into the "opposite dimension" which prevents it from interacting with positive mass except through the force of gravity. But since negative energy actually travels backwards through time then we need to reverse our rules for how negative energy would interact with positive energy. There is really only one time line, instead of imagining both universes splitting off from the Big Bang and heading in opposite directions, imagine them parallel to each other.
edit on 27/4/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 04:39 AM
link   
But since gravitation and some energy effects are creating forces that are essentially based upon squared properties, could it be that "negative matter" is part of imaginary space. (Not as in make-believe imaginary, but as in the mathematical set used in complex numbers.) This means there would be a matrix domain that exists at 90° tangental in terms of vectors to normal space. Negative matter wouldn't interact with normal matter because of this, but hypothetically the field effects from tensors could cross domains. (Forces of gravity, magnetism, etc.)

Maybe that's what all this dark matter/dark energy stuff is. If so, I suspect it could be exploited if we knew its actual nature. Something like a more directed approach to developing a working warp drive would then be possible.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Thanks, I think I'm tracking now. That makes more sense than what I was thinking of.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 01:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: pauljs75
But since gravitation and some energy effects are creating forces that are essentially based upon squared properties, could it be that "negative matter" is part of imaginary space.

I've thought about that before but my math skills aren't exceptional so I didn't get very far. The complex number space is two dimensional and real space is 3D or 4D if you add time, so it doesn't really seem to make sense in my mind. Usually when we're trying to conceptualize gravity we picture a flexible 2D surface which is curved downward by a positive mass, so small objects will roll down the slope caused by larger objects. It's easy to imagine negative mass in the same way but instead of causing the surface to bend downwards it causes the surface to bend upwards. Using that picture it's clear why other masses would be repelled from a negative mass. But of course space isn't a simple 2D surface and it gets trickier when you try to imagine gravity in 3D space, let alone negative gravity in 3D space. It's hard to imagine how there could be this parallel dimension of space in which negative energy exists, but who knows maybe imaginary numbers do hold the answer.
edit on 30/4/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Definitely a good post. Thanks. I had read a brief article related to the bidirectional flow of time from the Big Bang and multiverse variations developing along it, but it did not discuss negative matter or negative energy. I believe, at most, it briefly put forth the theory that the 'opposite' universe could explain the matter/antimatter disparity.
This is quite an elegant theory you have presented. It certainly provides an engaging alternative to dark matter and dark energy. The superfluid concept and gravitational repulsion would also help to explain why our best current theories of dark matter keep failing to be correlated by the ever-increasing sensitivity of our experimental detectors. And also why the LHC has failed to show any evidence of a WIMP so far. I also wonder if there's even an experimental way to create negative matter in our positive matter universe? Maybe, given the directionality of 'negative time', we would have to rip matter apart at incredibly slow speeds... Lol. Although, given that exotic matter and negative energy is required for most wormhole and warp theories, perhaps we could rework the theories and postulate a method of harnessing the properties of the other universe. Except, I'm sort of afraid that, if the directionality of 'negative time' is indeed opposite from our point of reference, harnessing this energy to power an FTL system would only allow the craft to fly in reverse.



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder


Any way it might be theoretically possible to bridge or wormhole between the opposite sides with this super fluid?

The answer to whatever the mathematics is would surely be =0... And perhaps more centrally, be the point in space and moment in time at the very beginning of creation?
edit on 11-5-2015 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder
"Cosmologists Prove Negative Mass Can Exist In Our Universe"

The original paper only claims negative mass to be possible during the inflation phase of the universe, assuming a de Sitter space:
arxiv.org...



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: moebius


The original paper only claims negative mass to be possible during the inflation phase of the universe, assuming a de Sitter space:

Well personally I tend to prefer Minkowski space because not only do our observations indicate we live in an infinite flat universe but the theory I have presented here predicts that space-time is perfectly flat by asserting the existence of an equal amount of positive and negative energy. Obviously when dealing with infinite flat space-time the nature of the Big Bang gets a little complicated, because if it's perfectly flat now then it must have always been perfectly flat, so we cannot say the Big Bang was responsible for creating infinite flat space-time.

Therefore it becomes necessary to model the Big Bang as a release of energy which occurred inside of the pre-existing space-time. The model I tend to gravitate towards is a vacuum collapse model which says that a spontaneous release of energy occurred all throughout the infinite flat universe instead of a single point. That makes it easy to explain the homogeneous distribution of matter in our universe without requiring the ad hoc idea of rapid inflation during the early universe.

It's also highly likely that the evenly distributed energy would collapse into a web-like structure which makes it possible explain the cosmic web structure without dark matter filaments. Every time I see a computer simulation of how the universe evolves they always skip the inflation part of the process, they just start with all the matter evenly spread about a 3D cube and then they let it collapse. That strongly indicates to me that actually there was no inflation stage and the energy started out in a gaseous type of state.

And I haven't even started on all the problems associated with modeling the Big Bang as a singularity. It's unclear how such a singularity was even created, why it wouldn't just be a black hole, or why it would suddenly choose to inflate. When you put all the evidence together it seems like the vacuum collapse model has a much higher probability of being correct compared to the singularity-inflation model. As I said I don't really want to get into the details of the Big Bang in this thread, although I guess it's a bit late for that now.
edit on 12/5/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Wifibrains


Any way it might be theoretically possible to bridge or wormhole between the opposite sides with this super fluid?

If you're asking if there's any way to travel into the twin universe the answer is probably no, because remember positive energy totally cancels out the negative energy on the other side. If such a wormhole did exist it would allow both sides of the universe to wipe each other out and we don't see that happening in reality. Plus it's really the type of energy which dictates which side of the universe it exists on. Negative energy exists in what I call "negative space" because it has a negative mass. Allowing positive mass into the same space doesn't make mathematical sense. This is why I don't think we will ever be able to directly interact with negative matter, but we will be able to manipulate it using gravity if we ever manage to capture some.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 05:15 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

You are missing the point. You can not have negative mass in a Minkowski space-time time according to known physics (and the paper referenced).



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

If you are familiar with fractals the ideas of a repetition from macro to micro scales suggests there is no limit to size. Therefore no limit to energy. The limit is that scenario is the one which stops the movement between the micro and macro verses. Is it a true limit or is there a way to move.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: iFloButta

I don't think you're fully understanding how the model works. The basic idea is that positive matter clumps together and forms galaxies with structure whereas the negative energy remains in a fluid/plasma state and doesn't form any large structures. Since the negative matter/fluid is gravitationally repelled from the positive matter you end up with cavities in the negative matter/fluid where the positive galaxies are located. This creates the inverse gravitational lensing effect we normally attribute to dark matter and can also explain the expansion of space which we normally attribute to dark energy (the negative energy filling the space between all galaxies causes space to expand between the galaxies).

The 1995 Twin Universes Cosmology paper I linked to contains a section which gives quite a good description of what large scale structure in the Twin Universe Model should look like. They provide the following image and description:




The matter of the twin fold forms big stable clumps, which repel the matter of our fold of the universe, this last taking place in the remnant space. By opposition to the pancake model numerical simulations, this pattern is fairly non-linear. After its formation, corresponding to the Jeans time of the high density system (2.10 9 years) , there is no significant evolution of the general pattern over a time comparable to the age of the Universe so that this model could be a good candidate to explain the observed spongy aspect of our fold of the Universe, at large scale.


It's not exactly clear to me how the author produced the cellular structure given that they thought negative mass would attract negative mass (it's not explained well in the paper) but that is the same structure I predicted in my earlier theory. Also, here is a picture I made with my simulation program some time ago, I added some text which helps to further illustrate the idea:


One of the topics I didn't get into is the exact nature of the Big Bang, all I said was that it must have created an equal amount of positive and negative energy. But there are many good reasons I think it didn't begin as a singularity. I believe the large scale isotropic and homogeneous structure of the universe is possible in a bimetric model where an infinite amount of positive and negative energy is released throughout an infinite flat space-time. But that is the topic of another thread which I will probably make soon.




Interesting, it's almost a negative image/fractal of this...



Exciting, for the electrons at least!



One of the topics I didn't get into is the exact nature of the Big Bang, all I said was that it must have created an equal amount of positive and negative energy. But there are many good reasons I think it didn't begin as a singularity.


I can think of one! And aptly it could still be called the Big Bang.

The moment before the six days of creation... Lol.



In this video the nuclei appear to disappear and then reappear! Where do they go? Maybe it is quantum entanglement with a divide?



edit: Above video is timelapsed over 5 or six days, im not sure if it is speed up or edited to crucial points though.
edit on 13-5-2015 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

You are missing the point. You can not have negative mass in a Minkowski space-time time according to known physics (and the paper referenced).

Oh I see what you're saying now. However Bimetric Cosmology appears to solve that problem by having a twin universe which contains what you might call an inverted Minkowski space in which negative energy can happily exist without coming into contact with any positive energy. But if the results of that paper don't apply to this model of Bimetric Cosmology then it seems like the problem of negative matter being attracted to negative matter needs to be solved in a different way unfortunately.
edit on 13/5/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join