Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / January 2007



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Quantum Gravity 83.7: Negative Mass Fundamental?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
OsherD - 30 Jan 2007 20:18 GMT
>From Osher Doctorow mdoctorow@comcast.net

Before proceeding, I have to mention that whatever
Google did in its recent "rearrangement", I can no longer
reply to readers because my terminal screen only shows
a one-line tiny box of part of readers' replies, and I can't
continue my own post without starting a new Section (my
previous message disappears).   This is fine with me,
since U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (of House
Intelligence subcommittees) had been threatening to
control the internet before the November 2006 Elections,
and I'm just assuming that now she's succeeded directly
or indirectly (maybe Google volunteered to "self-police"
in the correct Party Line?).   So regarding the last Graffiti
Artist/Troll Hampton Din, whose profile lists him as another
name for nospam at nospam dot com (the biggest spam-
ming site re sci.physics), he'll just have to get used to
talking to himself instead of to me.

Now let's turn to Negative Mass.   According to Mainstream
physics, this doesn't exist.  However, Negative Energy is
accepted by them.  While the contradiction between public
and private life and between the Scientific Method and
Bureaucracies claiming to practice the Scientific Method
would lead us to expect some such paradoxes, a Negative
Mass could arguably solve Quantum Gravity at one stroke
if it is associated with a "push" rather than a gravitational
"pull".

In addition, something rather strange happens when you
set the tension of a string equal to the force of Hooke's Law
for a spring.  Formally, at least, you get:

1) M^2 = 2pi k Jx

where pi is the usual circle constant, k is the string
stiffness, J is spin, x is elastic stretch amount beyond the
unstretched state, M is mass which in Wikipedia's and/or
www.superstringtheory.com's scenarios has a subscript
j as the mass corresponding to Spin J (quantized).

So arguably mass could be negative and still preserve
equation (1).   It is true that (1) is multiplicative on the
right hand side, but if (1) is not Fundamental it still can
be used as a guide to deeper things.  Notice also that
the mass seems to be generated by stiffness and by
stretch (elongation) as in the usual string scenario for
various similar variables, while the Spin seems to suggest
that it is spacetime that is also being stretched (especially
in the classical scenario where under various conditions
Spin angular momentum is associated with rotation of a body
about its own c.m.  Rotation, recall in PI (Probable Influence
/Causation), is a type of tendency to expand in space
even if the tendency is not "completed".

Osher Doctorow
da5id65536@yahoo.com - 30 Jan 2007 21:00 GMT
> Before proceeding, I have to mention that whatever
> Google did in its recent "rearrangement", I can no longer
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> or indirectly (maybe Google volunteered to "self-police"
> in the correct Party Line?).

Um.  The trick is to click on that one-line tiny box.  that expands it.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.