AGM Home

Behaviour

Evidence

Simulations

Investigation

Objections

Problems

  • Objections

There’s no such thing as antigravity.

There is no evidence to support that statement.

 

It’s very unlikely that such a phenomenon would not have been observed already.

Antigravity matter does not interact with photons (except via gravity) and spreads itself out thinly a long way away from us.  It’s quite reasonable that we find the concept alien and difficult to accept.  But we have already detected it.  All the effects which are currently attributed to dark matter are actually caused by antigravity matter.  Other effects are described on the Evidence page.

 

This theory requires the invention of a new kind of particle AND a new force.

 

It’s quite possible that antigravity matter particles are already well known to physics.  In high energy physics experiments we measure mass not weight. Measuring weight (that is, the effect of gravity) usually requires large numbers of particles and a significant amount of time. There are known particles whose mass has not been measured and there are many known particles whose weight has not been measured. On the Investigation page the suggestion is made that antigravity matter particles are neutrinos.

 

Antigravity may not be a completely new force, but a new aspect of an existing force, gravity.

 

Compare that with the theory of Dark Matter which appears to require a new particle and an explanation for why it resists gravity and stays spread out at low density.

 

If antigravity matter existed it would have affected satellites, space probes and moon rockets in space.

Antigravity matter is repelled from massive normal matter objects.  It will not find equilibrium until it is in the order of light years away from the sun.  As a result there is little or no antigravity matter in space near the earth, the moon or any of the known planets of the solar system.

 

If antigravity matter existed it would have affected objects in the Oort Cloud and there would be no comets in the solar system.

 

The Oort Cloud does not exist.  No objects have ever been observed in the Oort Cloud.  Comets have condensed from molecular clouds expelled by other stars.  The have been brought to the solar system by the flow of antigravity matter wind.

Antigravity matter breaks the laws of thermodynamics either 1) because energy could be generated from nothing by allowing antigravity particles to float up into space, or 2) because an antigravity particle would accelerate in the wrong direction if you pushed it.

Antigravity matter particles have positive mass but are repelled from other particles. Repulsions are already well known in physics and don't break any fundamental laws e.g. electrostatic repulsion. The same energy generation argument could be applied to a rock lowered from the top of a mountain. In both cases the energy generation can only be done once. The energy has to be put back in to return the system to the starting state. Antigravity matter can't normally be found on earth because it has already settled into its lowest potential energy position - spread out throughout deep space. Antigravity matter particles have positive mass and will accelerate in the same direction that they are pushed.

 

Dark Matter is predicted by the Standard Model

 

The Standard Model predicts many types of particles but it says nothing about gravity. Whether a given predicted particle is actually Dark Matter or anything else is just conjecture.

 

Your meaning of the word "mass" is unclear.

In this website “mass” is used to mean that property which leads to inertia.  A force acting on a massive object will cause it to accelerate according to Newton’s law.  This is different from the property called weight, which is the net force acting on an object due to gravity (including antigravity).  Weight might properly be expressed in units of force but it is common practice to convert weight into units of mass using the inverse of the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the earth as the constant of conversion.  Therefore at the surface of the earth an object with a mass of 1 kg has a weight of 1kg.  Elsewhere that object’s weight might vary but its mass will always be 1kg.  (On this website we also ignore relativistic effects because speeds of objects are low compared to the speed of light).  On earth weight is conventionally measured in the direction of the centre of the earth.  An antigravity matter particle has inertia but is repelled from the earth, so it can be said that on earth an antigravity matter particle has positive mass but negative weight.

 

Another effect of mass is that massive normal matter objects are attracted to each other by gravity according to the equation .  In this website this effect is assumed to be modified such that antigravity matter particles are repelled from other antigravity matter particles and from normal matter objects.  Normal matter objects are also repelled from antigravity matter particles.  In all calculations and simulations it is assumed that these repulsions follow the inverse square law.  It is also expected that the gravitational constants for these repulsions may be different from G.  Therefore for the purposes of the calculations and simulations on this website we have defined new gravitational constants as follows:-

The attraction between normal matter objects is given by (where is the same as the conventional G).

The repulsion between normal matter objects and antigravity matter particles is given by.

The repulsion between antigravity matter particles is given by.

 

“Spiral galaxies are common in the universe. However simulations of gravitationally bound matter do not produce core-and-disc shapes or spirals.”

 

No. Keep up.

http://blogs.disc...to-date/

 

[and]

 

Its takes a 3D sim to deal with the bulge. I can't see any sign of the sim being 3D only in the paper.

http://arxiv.org/...30v2.pdf

 

The objection presented here is that the ERIS simulation has produced spirals without antigravity matter. 

 

The ERIS simulation includes gravitational softening with a softening length of 120 pc.  Gravitational softening is a technique used in simulations described for example here.  It has the effect of reducing gravitational forces at short range.  Unfortunately this makes a simulation unrealistic.  The gravitational forces acting upon an object within a galaxy without antigravity matter can be divided into two categories as follows:-

 

1)      Long range force.  This is the net gravitational effect of all the other objects in the galaxy except those that are close by.  The object’s acceleration under the influence of the long range force is slow to change.  Under the influence of the long range force a disc of many objects can continue to rotate as a disc.

2)      Short range force.  This is the net gravitational effect of the few other objects that are close by.  This force is much more variable in size and direction.  The effect of the short range force is to randomise the movement of objects.  Thus in a real galaxy (without antigravity matter) a rotating disc will be transformed by the short range force into a larger blob of chaotically moving objects.

 

The total gravitational force on the object is the sum of these two categories.  The effect of gravitational softening is to reduce the short range force.  The simulation then unrealistically produces a galaxy disc. 

 

The simulations used on this website do use gravitational softening but the softening distance is reduced so that it rarely occurs.  A different approach is used to overcome the overstep problem (described in the above link).  This involves each object having its own variable trajectory recalculation period which depends on the object’s situation.  The simulation timestep is also variable and equals the time to get to the next trajectory recalculation required by any object.  The position of all objects is then recalculated but only one object needs its trajectory recalculating.

 

Where is the maths to support this idea?

 

There’s a maths page on this website and plenty of maths went into the simulations.  However the maths isn’t complicated and is based on simple Newtonian dynamics.  There is also an attempt to quantify some of the parameters relating to antigravity matter on the Investigations page.

 

This is just another TOE – Theory Of Everything

 

The AGM theory is not theory of everything.  It ignores relativity.  It makes no attempt to explain what antigravity matter is, what normal matter is, or what gravity, antigravity, mass, time, or space are.  It is just an interpretation of a set of observations.

 

Antigravity is impossible - Einstein showed that gravity is caused by curvature of space-time. It's not possible to curve space-time to create antigravity.

 

This theory does not specify what kind of force antigravity is. However it is very similar to the reverse of gravity.  It appears to follow the inverse square law, have a similar strength to gravity and also acts on photons.

Spiral arms are already explained by Density Wave Theory. Antigravity matter is not required.

Density Wave Theory does not explain how a spiral galaxy becomes flat disc in the first place.  Nor does it explain the many other features of a galaxy - the existence of core and disc, reverse spiral arms and barred galaxies. But these features are explained by the existence of antigravity matter.

 

Antigravity matter would distort the orbits of the outer planets.

If Gnn = Gna = Gaa the acceleration of Voyager 1, the furthest man made object from the Sun (and well beyond Neptune) would be increased by a factor of about 1.000004. The effect on closer objects and planets would be even smaller.  Antigravity matter affects galaxies because they have extremely low average densities.

 

Dark Matter is an established theory.

The theory of dark matter has been created to explain the observed orbital velocities of objects in galaxies. However it does not explain many things:-
Why does dark matter remain spread out over a larger radius than the galaxy?
Why is there sometimes dark matter with no visible matter?
Why is there far more dark matter in some galaxy clusters than in the individual galaxies in the cluster?
Where are the dark matter particles?

 

Molecular clouds have clearly defined surfaces because they are in the process of being ionised by radiation.  This is predicted by the theory of Re-ionisation.

One theory explains that molecular clouds have such clearly defined edges and surfaces because they are in the process of being ionised by deep space radiation.  However this raises the question of how they became molecular in the first place if the radiation of deep space is so intense.  Another theory is that they are remnants from the early universe, again being re-ionised.  But if so why are they located within galaxies where that radiation is greater than in the vast voids between galaxies?

 

The proposed mechanism for creating spiral arms would mean that by this stage in the life of the universe all matter in galaxy discs would have fallen into the galaxy cores and there would be no galaxy discs visible.

Antigravity matter gives two mechanisms for explaining the longevity of galaxy discs in the universe.  Firstly stars in a galaxy lose mass in the form of stellar wind.  This matter creates molecular clouds which can be driven out to the edges of galaxies by antigravity matter wind.  These coalesce and collapse to create new stars which feed the disc.  It is even possible that they might be driven away from a galaxy completely and coalesce and collapse to form new galaxies.  Secondly antigravity matter drag sucks kinetic energy out of orbiting galaxy clusters and helps galaxies to come together.  As they combine they form new disc-and-core shaped galaxies.

 

The simulated spiral arms are not realistic because there should be more “winding” of the galaxy. That is, the inner particles should be orbiting faster than the outer particles.  Winding would destroy the spiral arms.

The gravity of the galaxy is dominated by the antigravity matter vortex as described in Behaviour.  Attraction to the centre increases approximately in proportion to distance from the centre.  This means there is only a small amount of winding.

 

Dark Matter could cause drag and therefore could cause spiral arms by a similar mechanism to that described here.

 

Dark Matter would then begin to rotate as well and the drag would reduce and eventually disappear.

Could the repulsive force of AGM replace Dark Energy as an explanation for the expansion of the universe?

 

Antigravity matter may be part of the Dark Energy story.  However it hasn’t been included in this website because the profile of the universe's acceleration over time doesn't match a simple expansion of antigravity matter.  The truth must be more complex - or entirely different.

 

It seems that a lot more of this antigravity matter would be required than dark matter to explain galaxy rotation.  Since antigravity matter would tend to be uniformly distributed throughout the universe and the universe is mostly empty space, especially the spaces between galaxies and galaxy clusters.  To have enough antigravity matter to explain galaxy rotation, 99.999% of the matter in the universe would be of the antigravity type.

 

Yes it’s a lot.

The filamentary nature of the universe is due to the self-separating charge forces that pervade it. There doesn't need to be anything in-between them to describe their behaviour, since the charge force is billions of times stronger than gravity.

Without embracing the effects of charges in space, dark matter is the only way to explain what is being seen. Plasma cosmology resolves this.

Regarding the formation of spiral galaxies, this has been simulated from the plasma cosmology standpoint through simulations of Dr. Anthony Peratt.

 

The theory of Plasma Cosmology seems to state that enormous currents flow through the plasma of deep space and these cause the shapes and behaviour of galaxies.

 

There may be large currents and magnetic fields throughout the universe and these may influence the movement of plasma in deep space.  However the objects that contribute most of the mass of the galaxy, stars and molecular clouds, are electrically neutral and therefore will not be directly affected.  It is therefore difficult to see how Plasma Cosmology could offer an explanation for the apparent extra mass of galaxies and clusters.

 

Tim, not to mention you have ZERO evidence. I've read your page three or four times now, I like your ideas, but...

Until you put a hoverboard in my hands, PURE SPECULATION of antigrav matter means jack.

IMO, the results can be explained with current information without the invention of new terms and phrases.

 

There’s loads of evidence as listed on the Evidence page.  I can’t make a hover-board today because the closest antigravity matter is several light years away and would also be rather difficult to catch.  Maybe tomorrow….

 

© Copyright Tim E Simmons 2008 to 2013. Last updated 20th April 2013.  Major changes are logged in AGM Change Log.