Edge of the Universe

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">How does that rest on your mind? It does not rest very comfortable on mine. It appears that many days that theories are reworked to work the problems out of them. What's the difference between that and reworking the experiment around to fit the theory? <br /><br />I would suspect that anit-matter would produce anti-gravity.. Anti-gravitons..etc ect.</font><br /><br />Fundamental mass bends space time, whether its electrically positive or electrically negative. In fact, the bending of space time can be thought of as a "positive pressure" leading to a point particle whereas repulsion is caused by negative pressure. Negative pressure forms a field of replusion, ala Dark Energy, Quintessence, and Hyperbolic spatial curvature. I think it is wrong to describe negative pressure as point particles, since it is positive pressure which forms spheres (i.e. the skin of the balloon as well as the denser air inside of it). So particle concepts of Dark Energy and Quintessence are wrong in my opinion. Matter is mostly pressure, that is, points. Light acts like both particles and waves, part pressure, part wave. Dark Energy, Quintessence, etc. I think would be mostly wave. To know more about negative pressure, dark energy, etc, we will have to know more about light.

 

[eric2006]

Someone posed this thought on another thread<br /><br /><br />"Is it possible that quasars produce both positrons and anti-nucleons, allowing the formation of anti-hydrogen? anti-hydrogen accumulates in the voids we see in the soap bubble universe. Since anti-gravity makes each particle stay as far away from every other particle as possible, ordinary matter (including dark matter) is pushed out to the surface. Where bubbles collide, we see the formation of strings of superclusters of galaxies. There is a general effect throughout the visible universe, causing a temporary acceleration of the Hubble expansion. Thus, there is no need for Dark Energy as a theoretical contstruct."<br /><br />Regardless, I do agree with what you are saying. I think that our ability or our unability is our limiting factor at the moment to fully understand the properties of light. Is it is wave or a particle? If it is a wave what is it causing to wave? It is very difficult to see past our senses. One reason is the feeling, long dismissed by philosophers, that perception mirrors an objective reality.<br /><br />