| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jeff Relf" |
| Date: |
04 Apr 2004 12:27:27 AM |
| Object: |
The Big Chill. |
Hi Keith Stein,
I mentioned this,
" Well I'm assuming that dark energy has a negative inertia.
( i.e. a virtual energy deficit )
So lambda's constant acceleration of the expansion
of space-time makes the most sense. ".
And you quoted Mr. Gisse,
" Relf is an idiot. It is as simple as that. ".
adding, " I could believe it eh ! ".
Are you saying that you don't believe that
our universe has always been losing heat,
energy and density ? eh ?
.
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Big Chill. |
04 Apr 2004 04:04:10 PM |
|
|
Jeff Relf wrote:
Well I'm assuming that dark energy has a negative inertia.
Define "dark energy" and define "negative inertia". Cite
references please for these definitions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: Dark energy. |
05 Apr 2004 12:03:01 AM |
|
|
Hi Sam Wormley, You asked,
" Define dark energy and define negative inertia.
Cite references please for these definitions. ".
Dark energy is virtual energy, and it's negative energy.
( energy has inertia, hence the term negative inertia )
It's Einstein's Cosmological constant ...
a constant acceleration in the expansion of spacetime.
Recent supernovae data from Adam Riess and other
strongly support this view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
It's like an energy deficit due to the energy
necessary to maintain a vacuum.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark energy. |
05 Apr 2004 10:18:41 PM |
|
|
Jeff Relf <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message news:<r0d1o06uub41.dlg@x.Jeff.Relf>...
Hi Sam Wormley, You asked,
" Define dark energy and define negative inertia.
Cite references please for these definitions. ".
Dark energy is virtual energy, and it's negative energy.
( energy has inertia, hence the term negative inertia )
It's Einstein's Cosmological constant ...
a constant acceleration in the expansion of spacetime.
Why can't you call it anti-gravity?
Where instead of time slowing down it speeds back up?
snip
Thankyou;
Where light accelerates time speeds back up; the reverse of gravity.
This is my cosmology.
As you go farther out time speeds back up under anti-gravity.
-- Mitch Raemsch
-- Time and Light's motion are cofactors --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: As you energize photons. |
06 Apr 2004 01:21:39 AM |
|
|
Hi Mitchell, You said,
" Where light accelerates time speeds back up; ".
As you energize photons they gain momentum ( inertia ).
( Possibly even creating particles with rest mass )
More inertia means more gravitational energy and longer tics.
( As viewed by a more stationary observer )
i.e. Time slows down, fewer tics are observed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: As you energize photons. |
06 Apr 2004 11:33:02 PM |
|
|
Jeff Relf <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message news:<1npgy4i4tzftx$.dlg@x.Jeff.Relf>...
Hi Mitchell, You said,
" Where light accelerates time speeds back up; ".
As you energize photons they gain momentum ( inertia ).
( Possibly even creating particles with rest mass )
More inertia means more gravitational energy and longer tics.
( As viewed by a more stationary observer )
i.e. Time slows down, fewer tics are observed.
You're not re-energizing the dead photons at the event horizon this
way are you Jeff?
How do you get over the infinite redshift?
The redshift is not the effect of escape velocity. Photons don't
loose energy as the climb out of the gravity well. They start off
that way.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Accelerates --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: Re: As you energize photons. |
09 Apr 2004 06:01:30 AM |
|
|
Hi Mitchell, You asked,
" How do you get over the infinite redshift ? ".
Frozen stars never fully form, they evaporate first.
( Very quickly in the local frame due to Unruh radiation,
and very slowly outside the gravity well,
due to Hawking radiation )
So the redshifting merely approaches infinity,
it never actually reaches it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark energy. |
05 Apr 2004 08:26:05 AM |
|
|
Jeff Relf wrote:
Hi Sam Wormley, You asked,
" Define dark energy and define negative inertia.
Cite references please for these definitions. ".
Dark energy is virtual energy, and it's negative energy.
( energy has inertia, hence the term negative inertia )
It's Einstein's Cosmological constant ...
a constant acceleration in the expansion of spacetime.
Recent supernovae data from Adam Riess and other
strongly support this view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
It's like an energy deficit due to the energy
necessary to maintain a vacuum.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
"In cosmology, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy which
permeates all of space and has negative pressure resulting in an
effective "repulsive gravitational force". Dark energy may account
for the accelerating universe as well as a significant portion of the
mass in the universe. Two proposed forms of dark energy are the
cosmological constant and quintessence, where the former is static
and the latter is dynamic. Distinguishing between the two requires
high precision measurements of the expansion of the universe to see
how the speed of the expansion changes over time. Making such
measurements is a topic of current research".
Relf seems to have made up the terms
o "virtual energy"
o "negative energy"
o "negative inertia"
What is the Ultimate Fate of the Universe?
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101fate.html
Ref: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_limits.html
The data places new constraints on the Dark Energy. It seems more
like a "cosmological constant" than a negative-pressure energy field
called "quintessence". But quintessence is not ruled out.
Fast moving neutrinos do not play any major role in the evolution of
structure in the universe. They would have prevented the early
clumping of gas in the universe, delaying the emergence of the first
stars, in conflict with the new WMAP data.
Empty Model Flat Dark Energy Model Closed Dark Energy Model
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/DL-diff-vs-z.ps
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark energy. |
06 Apr 2004 01:09:46 AM |
|
|
Hi Sam Wormley,
Re: Einstein's cosmological constant being dark energy,
You suggested, " Relf seems to have made up the terms
o virtual energy
o negative energy
o negative inertia ".
Are you claiming that dark energy is real ?
( This is news to me )
It's Einstein's Principle of Equivalence that dictates that
negative ( virtual ) energy causes negative gravity.
If you have a better theory, I'd love to hear it.
It takes energy to maintain a ( false ) vacuum,
and that " energy deficit " is accumulating.
( The uncertainty principle prohibits a perfect vacuum )
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
