--- Jesse Mazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John M wrote: > > > > > > >Jesse and George: SNIP > JeMa: > Well, 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. Likewise, in > general relativity only > negative mass/energy would be able to hold open a > wormhole, there'd be no > way to arrange positive mass/energy to do that. > > Jesse > JohnMi: There is a 'physicist-invented' system (a miraculous edifice) of the model "physics", the explanatory ever modified quantitative treatment of the ever increasing knowledge (epistemically enriching cognitive inventory continually further-discovered) going through systems, all with equations including still holding and duly modified expressions (eg. entropy). (It is incredibly successful and productive to originate our technology.) The entire setup is based on "positive" mass (matter?) and energy. It is a balanced entity. Put a new patern into it and the whole order goes berzerk. The difficulty is the modelwise-reduced values and the "APPLICATION" of the results of math onto them. The "beyond the model boundaries" effects are disregarded. We have a balanced complexity and if we try to alter one segment the thing falls apart. We must not include e.g. negative mass into a complexity built on positive mass only. It has no provisions for a different vision. (Heliocentric constant orbiting could not fit into the planatary geocentric retrogradational image, it was deemed "false". Maybe paradoxical. Astronomy had to be rewritten for the new concepts, it did not fit into the (then) Ptolemaic order. Heliocentric was wrong.) We are skewed by the past 26 centuries into seeing only the positive side of matter and energy. All the math equations are built on that. Of course they reject another view. Gravitation - or whatever we DON'T know about it - is no proof for rejecting a new idea which is outside of the existing ignorance about it. Equations or not. The fantasy of a wormhole ditto. Phlogiston neither(haha). Equational 'matching' within the same system and its values is not too impressive. The values are captive to the present (and past??) instrumentation and their calculative evaluation. If something does not match: it is wrong a priori. Alter the experimental conditions! Observations are rejected because some theory prohibits them. (Of course the 'observations' are also interpreted). I am not advocating the negative mass and energy idea, just fight the 'methods for their rejection' before we look into a possibility to use them right. Nobody took a second explanation for the redshift seriously, because Hubble's ingenious idea was so impressive. And today, after millions of so slanted experiments, we all expand. Irrevocably. And selectively only. Thanks for a serious reply. I did not intend to go that deeply into it. John M
