Modern Cosmology vs Isaac Newton
In her latest post Sabine Hossenfelder asks if we can get energy for free e g in the form of Dark Energy as a main mystery of modern cosmology
Let us see what Newton can bring to this question starting with his law of gravitation:
- Δϕ=ρ or ρ=Δϕ
connecting mass density ρ(x,t) to gravitational potential ϕ(x,t) though the Laplacian differential operator Δ with x a Euclidean space coordinate and t time.
The standard view is that mass density is non-negative ρ(x,t)≥0 for all (x,t), but if we expand the scope why not allow ρ(x,t) to also locally be negative, then corresponding to some form of negative mass.
If we dare to take this step, we find the following remarkable facts:
- With ρ(x,t) an initial vanishingly small perturbation of an initial zero state varying very quickly in space between positive and negative values, the corresponding potential ϕ(x,t) will inflate to substantial size, as if gravitational potential is created out of nothing. This may correspond to a Big Bang from which a Universe filled with both positive and negative mass can evolve.
- Regions with negative mass density repel regions with positive mass density and so create an expansion seemingly out of nothing, which may correspond to Dark Energy, while larger regions of small positive and negative mass density can form and then locally contract by gravitational attraction into galaxies with large local density.
- Large regions where ϕ(x,t) is slowly varying with ρ(x,t)=Δϕ(x,t)≥0 small may correspond to Dark Matter, which is not visible but still has major gravitational effect.
In one shot, we thus open to new views on both Big Bang, Dark Energy and Dark Matter. Any comment?
More substance to such a scenario is given in blog posts on New Newtonian Cosmology.
See more here claesjohnson
Header image: The New Yorker
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Ken Hughes
| #
Well, I agree that there must be a negative “half” of the universe, if only to explain CPT Symmetry, but there is much more justification for this than just CPT. Dark Energy is simply the increasing rate of time over the eons, a contraction of the wavelength of time energy, so there is no access to that I’m afraid, The free energy we all dream about is in the vacuum energy which we experience as a minute amount per m^3. However, this tiny amount of energy is merely the difference between the two “opposite” waves of energy since they are not quite 180 degrees out of phase, This discrepancy is one Planck time since one wave must lead the other by this amount. So, the speculation that the calculated vast amount of vacuum energy is somehow cancelled by means unknown is quite true. The vacuum energy is the energy of the whole wave, but what we experience and observe is only the one Plamck time out of phase between the positive and negative waves. See https://independent.academia.edu/KenHughes1
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
Oh, and we agree about your “vanishingly” small perturbation too. This is the cyclical variation of energy between zero and one Planck time WITHIN each Planck time we experience. As the energy varies between zero and one Planck time in the positive wave, the energy varies between one Planck time and zero in the other, negative wave. This give us the experience of one Planck time after another. You cannot explain the quantisation of time any other way.
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
We live in a Binary Universe with a net zero energy of everything. All matter particles alternate between positive and negative within each Planck time.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
At what point in time does the fantasy of physics become so disconnected from reality that people realize they have been fed a bunch of bullshit and are spewing utter nonsense?
Reply
Whokoo
| #
Herb!!! Your language!!!
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
If you review the background of Claes Johnson you will find he is not a physicist nor a scientist. He is a mathematician. as Newton was. But he didn’t formulate (invent) calculus as Newton did. And he does not refer to quantitative astronomic observations as Newton did. And I have never read that Newton referred to “mass density”. Newton referred to the “MASS”.of a well defined body of matter which had a variable density, which had “center of mass”.
Have a good day
Reply
Wisenox
| #
I looked at this as a zero index loop. : 0-9
0 always reduced to 1
9 always reduced to 10, then 1
A harmonic of either reduces to 3, 3, 3
Oddly enough, 3/3/3 in the system in my head reduces to 3, 6, 9.
I also find 3,6,9 in sound.
The perturbation I see is full/empty, like 0 == 360.
Reply
Wisenox
| #
I know this makes sense only in my head, but if I view as the point where the offset from 10 matches the distance, ie == 1, the 9 has none.
The 3 sits at the 7 spot, and 6 at 4, but 9 is all zero.
Stillness.
Reply