General Relativity Proves HV Lifters' Create Significant Space-Time Curvature

Maybe, But at this same time, The unnecessary flack is a huge buzzkill. I really do know the things I speak of. Dark energy could yet be disproven Via a simple modification to Relativity.

I feel strongly that What we call dark energy could even be simple gravity from the filaments of the cosmic web.

If you do have observations of Dark energy please link me articles i would love to see it.
Both of you guys are still missing the point. The cosmological acceleration that we've observed and confirmed six ways from Sunday now, is empirical proof that there's an antigravitational field acting between the galaxy clusters.

The nature of the source of that field is irrelevant to this discussion because the "repulsive" acceleration between the galaxy clusters is a real, physical, empirical reality of our universe. The only question now is "how exactly is that antigravitational field being produced?" But that question doesn't matter here - the observed reality is indisputable.
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
Both of you guys are still missing the point. The cosmological acceleration that we've observed and confirmed six ways from Sunday now, is empirical proof that there's an antigravitational field acting between the galaxy clusters.

The nature of the source of that field is irrelevant to this discussion because the "repulsive" acceleration between the galaxy clusters is a real, physical, empirical reality of our universe. The only question now is "how exactly is that antigravitational field being produced?" But that question doesn't matter here - the observed reality is indisputable.
Not if relativity were modified, In this context, Dark energy is still theoretical, You say that it's proven, But it's simply not an empirical fact. I know you have enough proof for you to say, This is it, dark energy is a fact, A lot of people do, That doesn't make it the Truth of things though. It's not Proven. You say it is Proven. So,

Empirically Proove Dark energy bro. I don't mean that as a challenge, I mean, Change Science, Prove it.
 

Tate

Honorable
He's not talking about any kind of ion propulsion, which is still a form of reaction propulsion - he's suggesting a new type of spacetime propulsion principle that I've never heard of before, and I'm not convinced that he's correct frankly.

But if he's right then it would throw open the door to rapid manned interstellar spaceflight.

I have to admit i did not watch the video but it does sound interesting, i came in on talks about ionizing filaments which to my knowledge in ufology is a for of ionic propulsion. "Mea Culpa"

If you are looking for a credible form of transportation or teleportation then i suggest a peek at this guys work.



Leo Kouwenhoven is professor Quantum Transport. I am not sure which Academia he is from but it is a interesting video.
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
Estimated ratios of dark matter and dark energy (which may be the cosmological constant) in the universe. According to current theories of physics, dark energy now dominates as the largest source of energy of the universe, in contrast to earlier epochs when it was insignificant.

Also, The Cosmological constant is wrong. We all know this. https://phys.org/news/2012-03-weve-cosmological-constant-wrong.html

It's been wrong before, Why are you so certain this time it's the correct answer?
 

waitedavid137

Honorable
Ok, I thought the cosmological constant was not used anymore...
No, public relations just renamed it dark energy.
Lets talk logistics of these theories of ionized propulsion...
Its not about the ion drive aspect of the lifters at all.
...Also, the Schwarzschild Metric states - "A Schwarzschild black hole or static black hole is a black hole that has neither electric charge nor angular momentum."

would not these Singularity's break your form of propulsion...
No, black holes are irrelevant, and the Schwarzschild solution is the exact solution for vacuum outside ANY spherically symmetric uncharged non rotating matter distribution, not just those collapsed to singularity.
 

Tate

Honorable
Tate, scroll to the bottom for references,
Accelerating expansion of the universe - Wikipedia

Ok, I am like Thomas on one thing, Wikipedia and even news outlets like new york times have been proven multiple times to post OPT-In or hit pieces and be influenced by money and or random people. I will look through the references to see if any Scholar links are provided and decide weither or not to go with this page from cited scholars
 

waitedavid137

Honorable
Estimated ratios of dark matter and dark energy (which may be the cosmological constant) in the universe. According to current theories of physics, dark energy now dominates as the largest source of energy of the universe, in contrast to earlier epochs when it was insignificant.

Also, The Cosmological constant is wrong. We all know this. https://phys.org/news/2012-03-weve-cosmological-constant-wrong.html

It's been wrong before, Why are you so certain this time it's the correct answer?
Have you actually read the few paragraph blog that came up in your search? Its not interesting.
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
An alternative to Einstein Not a popular opinion obviously, But an opinion none the less.
The hypothesis at the heart of the new theory s that "empty space is scale-invariant," Maeder, a researcher and honorary professor at the Department of Astronomy of the University of Geneva, told Space.com. "That means that if we make dilatation of [empty space] or contraction of it, its properties should not change, which seems rather reasonable."

"When [scale invariance] is introduced into the equations, this leads to a new small force, which is opposed to gravitation. But this force only appears at very low densities," he said.


On Earth, such a force would be a million or billion times smaller than the force of gravity, so it's not something that could be easily measured, he said. On the galactic scale, however, this force would be powerful enough to help hold the rotating galaxies together even without the presence of dark matter. But the scale invariance of space is not part of Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, which introduced the concept of a universal fabric called space-time, and provides the most precise description of gravity available. Time after time, general relativity has stood up to new tests, and new observations have confirmed the theory.


Rather than modifying that well-accepted theory, Maeder works with an alternative concept called the cotensor analysis, which, unlike general relativity, allows him to work with scale invariance.


"There are many observations that would better fit with this theory," said Maeder. "I have about 10 positive observational facts, and this is satisfactory. But there is still more work to do to fully confirm that."


Among those 10 items, which are cited in the new paper, Maeder said that his model provides an explanation for the rotation rate of individual galaxies, which has previously been attributed to dark matter. His model also fits with observations of the surprisingly high velocities of galaxies in galaxy clusters, he said.


Scale invariance of empty space and the resulting effects, Maeder said, could also account for the accelerating expansion of the universe, which scientists can't yet explain. This acceleration is generally attributed to a mysterious effect called Dark Energy

Is no one open to alternative ideas in this holy place of ideology? It's a relevant discussion, Regardless of how popular it is.
 

waitedavid137

Honorable
Ok, I am like Thomas on one thing, Wikipedia and even news outlets like new york times have been proven multiple times to post OPT-In or hit pieces and be influenced by money and or random people. I will look through the references to see if any Scholar links are provided and decide weither or not to go with this page from cited scholars
Did I or did I not say to scroll to the bottom for the references? Yeah I know all about wiki's fakedom in its articles. I wasn't referring to the article. I was referring to the references at the bottom of it.
 
It has nothing to do with the Alcubierre solution and public relations discriptions of that solution are largely wrong.
Yeah everybody loves to say that. But since there's no accurate translation in the english language for the concepts of metric tensor calculus, we'll have to get by with the metaphorical approximations of the english language - this is after all a discussion forum and not a metric tensor calculus forum.

By bias, I mean directional. So for simple example, consider the spacetime
ds² = dct²/(1-αz/c²)² - (1-αz/c²)²dσ²
It is an exact solution to Einstein's field equations for a uniform electric field laying along z corresponding to a gravitational acceleration field observed from the perspective of these coordinates to be in the -z direction.
Are there any published papers which discuss this model or is this your own unpublished idea? I've never seen any proposal in the literature about an electric field producing directional motion via gravitation before, and if it exists I'd like to read an article about it.

As for the Alcubierre warp drive, the negative energy density is ringed around the sides of the warp, not in front, nor back of it.
Sure, but the positive and negative gravitational poles are arranged front-to-back, which is why we have isometric diagrams like this one from NASA:

warp field orientation.jpg

I should also point out that a body of negative matter gravitationally coupled to a body of positive matter would undergo a linear acceleration just like the Alcubierre drive, a concept which Robert L. Forward described in his 1990 paper "Negative Matter Propulsion," four years before Alcubierre's paper was published. It's hard to ignore the similarity between the two concepts, both of which involve the negative gravitational pole and the positive gravitational pole uniformly accelerating in the direction of the positive pole. Forward describes the concept in Newtonian terms, but that's a valid approximation in the weak field limit so it would work in general relativity as well:

Negative Matter Propulsion.Robert L. Forward.1990.jpg
 

Tate

Honorable
Tate, scroll to the bottom for references,
Accelerating expansion of the universe - Wikipedia

I am going through actual papers from places like Harvard and they are telling me about rapid expansion and black hole binary systems but no actual observations of Dark Energy yet. If i do find one with observations then i will retract my statements but as of now there is no direct Observations, Also how TF does the cosmological constant equal ratios of dark energy and dark matter when we have no actual clue what dark matter and dark energy is... Some of this is going a past Theoretical into hypothetical...
 
Not if relativity were modified, In this context, Dark energy is still theoretical, You say that it's proven, But it's simply not an empirical fact. I know you have enough proof for you to say, This is it, dark energy is a fact, A lot of people do, That doesn't make it the Truth of things though. It's not Proven. You say it is Proven. So,

Empirically Proove Dark energy bro. I don't mean that as a challenge, I mean, Change Science, Prove it.

I am going through actual papers from places like Harvard and they are telling me about rapid expansion and black hole binary systems but no actual observations of Dark Energy yet. If i do find one with observations then i will retract my statements but as of now there is no direct Observations, Also how TF does the cosmological constant equal ratios of dark energy and dark matter when we have no actual clue what dark matter and dark energy is... Some of this is going a past Theoretical into hypothetical...
Guys - I've already explained this at least twice, and you're still not getting it.

Let me put it this way: the galaxy clusters in the universe are accelerating away from each other; i.e., they're "falling" away from one another. In other words, they're undergoing a "repulsive" rather than an "attractive" gravitational acceleration - they're experiencing an antigravitational acceleration. That's an indisputable empirical fact. So yes, antigravity is a proven feature of this universe. And Einstein's theory is fully consistent with it - in fact, the cosmological constant in his equation was always an antigravitational term. And antigravity appears in other ways in his equations too; it's an inherent feature of the mathematics, which Forward proved in 1963 (and perhaps others before him).

Is there an invisible form of energy pervading all of spacetime which we call "dark energy" which is producing that antigravitational acceleration? Maybe. That's our best hypothesis right now anyway.

But for the purposes of this discussion it doesn't matter, because the acceleration of the galaxy clusters apart from one another is physical proof of an antigravitational field; how that field is produced is a completely separate issue.
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
Maybe. That's our best hypothesis right now anyway.
Thank you, That's all I've been trying to point out. Now Can I be taken seriously, Daddy?

tenor.gif
 
Thank you, That's all I've been trying to point out.
The explanation is a hypothesis. The observed phenomenon of an antigravitational acceleration between the galaxy clusters is an empirical fact. And that's why you were 100% wrong when you said this:
I also believe Antigravity is a pipedream that simply does not occur in nature and therefore can not occur technologically. We can defy gravity in many ways, But we can not simply achieve Antigravity.
And I should perhaps point out that the absence of an observed effect in nature doesn't preclude it from existing. Materials with a negative refractive index don't occur in nature, for example, but they can be created technologically. So even if antigravity weren't a proven empirical feature of our universe, that wouldn't necessarily mean that it's unattainable through science and technology.
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
The explanation is a hypothesis. The observed phenomenon of an antigravitational acceleration between the galaxy clusters is an empirical fact. And that's why you were 100% wrong when you said this:
I'm Glad we aren't fussing, The problem is you just can't accept where I'm coming from, You believe Antigravity is necessary for the universe to function as it does, I believe Anti-gravity is a hypothetical phenomenon, You say it has been observed, However, You assume that's what the observation was. But Was it truly? Remember you call it Dark energy because you don't know a lot about it. Dark matter may not actually exist: physicists suggests | Cosmos
 
Last edited:
I'm Glad we aren't fussing, The problem is you just can't accept where I'm coming from, You believe Antigravity is necessary for the universe to function as it does, I believe Anti-gravity is a hypothetical phenomenon, You say it has been observed, However, You assume that's what the observation was. But Was it truly? Remember you call it Dark energy because you don't know a lot about it.
You're still confusing the effect, with the explanation for the effect. All of which is off-topic anyway because the author has already stated that antigravity has nothing to do with the effect that he's describing. So let's just drop it. And maybe read through the past couple of pages of this thread until you can see what I'm saying. We observe an antigravitational acceleration occurring all across the universe - it's an empirical fact that this is real. How that antigravitational field is produced is a matter of debate. But the existence of the antigravitational field is not up for debate, because we observe it just as surely as we observe dawn every morning.
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
Dark matter may not actually exist: physicists suggests | Cosmos
You're still confusing the effect, with the explanation for the effect. All of which is off-topic anyway because the author has already stated that antigravity has nothing to do with the effect that he's describing. So let's just drop it. And maybe read through the past couple of pages of this thread until you can see what I'm saying. We observe an antigravitational acceleration occurring all across the universe - it's an empirical fact that this is real. How that antigravitational field is produced is a matter of debate. But the existence of the antigravitational field is not up for debate, because we observe it just as surely as we observe dawn every morning.

We are experiencing an acceleration in the expansion of our universe to label it antigravitation is bias to your own opinion. .. I fully understand what You are saying., What you call antigravitation, could, in fact, be simple gravitation, You don't have to accept that, just accept that I think that's a possibility. Just because something is pulling on our bubble doesn't make it antigravity. Why because you assume nothing is beyond the cosmic microwave background? There are other possibilities. Yet you say I keep misunderstanding you. I'm offering other solutions to Dark matter and your very personally labeled antigravitation.

Anti-gravity (also known as a non-gravitational field) is a hypothetical phenomenon of creating a place or object that is free from the force of gravity. You say I'm not looking at antigravity in the proper cosmological context. I say you aren't using the word antigravity correctly.

No No, We can Drop the Subject, I'm just stating When I came here. I was treated like I had no idea what I was speaking about. I just simply Disagree, WHy can a person not Do that And be treated like a peer respectfully? That was the issue, ...
 
Last edited:

Tate

Honorable
On a universal scale the finite curve of the universe could stretch as far as it needs without outside interference like dark energy or dark matter, Also further more there could be Boson's that emit gravity weither in a wave form or in a particle that are responsible for the expansion of the universe. There is many ways of infinite expansion in hypothetical's. I admit i do not know exactly how it is expanding but the universe is...

Also, Aliens would not use Ions or Gravity singularly as propulsion. Gravity is a force connected with space and time... in ways. Time dilation is my best guess. Otherwise their biological functions would cease to exist due to entropy. Warp 9.5 from star trek would not even get them here within a natural life span as we know it in some cases.
 
We are experiencing an acceleration in the expansion of our universe to label it antigravitation is bias to your own opinion. .. I fully understand what You are saying., What you call antigravitation, could, in fact, be simple gravitation, You don't have to accept that, just accept that I think that's a possibility. Just because something is pulling on our bubble doesn't make it antigravity. Why because you assume nothing is beyond the cosmic microwave background? There are other possibilities. Yet you say I keep misunderstanding you. I'm offering other solutions to Dark matter and your very personally labeled antigravitation.
The dark matter effect and the dark energy effect are two different phenomena; the first pertains to the fact that the galactic rotation curves are essentially flat...which points to a higher positive gravitational field than we can account for with the observable matter in the galaxies. The dark energy effect is the observed antigravitational acceleration between the galaxy clusters of the universe. We know that it's an antigravitational effect because no other field in nature can explain this motion...but Einstein's theory of gravitation explains that motion perfectly as an antigravitational field. Since antigravity by definition describes the gravitational acceleration of matter in opposite directions, the cosmological acceleration is, by definition, antigravitational in nature. The source of that field is debatable; the nature of that field is not.

This PBS Space Time video explains the observed/empirical antigravitational acceleration of the universe well, but it also presents dark energy as the definitive explanation (which I think we both agree is debatable):

PBS Space Time | Anti-gravity and the True Nature of Dark Energy | Season 2 | Episode 7
 
Top