Jesse wroteWell, you're free to define "negative mass" however you like, of course--but this is not how physicists would use the term. When you plug negative values of mass or energy into various physics equations it leads to weird consequences that we don't see in everyday life, such as the fact that negative-mass objects would be gravitationally repelled by positive-mass objects, rather than attracted to them.Jesse you are too quick. If you actually plug the right signs in Newton's equations: F=ma and F=Gmm'/r2 you'll discover that positive mass attracts everything including negative mass, and that negative mass repels everything including negative mass. The behavior is markedly different from that of matter and antimatter. So negative mass could never gravitationally form planets but could only exist in a gaseous or distributed form in the Universe and appear to cancel long range gravitational force (possibly what we are seeing with the Pioneer spacecrafts?) George Levy |
- Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory... George Levy
- Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet T... Jesse Mazer
- Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet T... John M
- Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet T... Russell Standish
- RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet T... John Ross
- Neutrino shield idea Stephen Paul King
- RE: Neutrino shield idea John Ross
- Re: Neutrino shield idea Saibal Mitra
- RE: Neutrino shield idea John Ross
- Re: Neutrino shield idea Saibal Mitra
- RE: Neutrino shield idea John Ross