Thread: Gravity never zero

1. Originally Posted by AlexG
You do realize that by mulitplying -m1 and -m2, you get the same result as using m1 and m2?

In other words, you've done nothing.
It's your method you are supposed to understand it. Its the same maths but with a hole. Maths is proof, can't you see the hole?

Maths is invisible proof.

There is a big change in the physics with -m. It changes gravity into a push.

2. That's just silly.

3. Originally Posted by AlexG
That's just silly.
It's a silly mistake for thousands of scientists to miss. See I'm still a genius at your own method. You still have the same problem understanding me.

4. Pincho, everything you've posted is essentially nonsense.

You're a legend in your own mind.

5. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
If you want the scientific method here is my first formula...

F = G.-m1.-m2 / r^2

Which states that energy always travels towards lower energy.. not mass.
No that 'equation' says NOTHING of the sort. That equtation is saying that the force between 2 negative masses is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the 2 negative masses. So my queston is WTF is a negative mass?? We know that the equation works for normal mass, but where is your evidence that this is even such a thing as negative mass exists?

It gets rid of attraction, and changes forces like Gravity to become information passed towards holes in electrons... a push force.
No, the equation says nothing of the sort! It does not get rid of attraction it simply says that the attraction is stronger the closer the negative masses are from each other. Of course it is just pseudo-science hand waving because there is no such thing as negative mass.

Ok. So scientific method.
Changing the signs in a real equation and then not understanding what you have done is not even in the ball park of the scientific method.

Nice try though, I guess.

6. Originally Posted by origin
No that 'equation' says NOTHING of the sort. That equtation is saying that the force between 2 negative masses is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the 2 negative masses. So my queston is WTF is a negative mass?? We know that the equation works for normal mass, but where is your evidence that this is even such a thing as negative mass exists?

No, the equation says nothing of the sort! It does not get rid of attraction it simply says that the attraction is stronger the closer the negative masses are from each other. Of course it is just pseudo-science hand waving because there is no such thing as negative mass.

Changing the signs in a real equation and then not understanding what you have done is not even in the ball park of the scientific method.

Nice try though, I guess.
I knew it, you don't understand your own methods. Negative mass is a zero point hole in space time energy. Space is the energy, electrons are the holes. the Earth is a lot of holes, and an asteroid is a few holes. The space time behind the asteroid travels to the asteroid holes, it travels to the Earth holes. The Inverse square law works both ways. The asteroid moves to the Earth, because the Earth has the most electrons, so the most holes in space time. The asteroid has less, so space time has a greater flow to the Earth than the asteroid. But the flow is 3D, and so the inverse square law is fine. Not only that, but the electrons are now holes surrounded by energy, and mass, and have weight due to the kinetic energy of spin, which still manages to maintain a hole of zero energy. The hole has a down flow, which creates magnetism as an escape flow. This doesn't break the Michelson Morley experiment either, because a photon will travel to the holes in space time, the electrons.

7. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
I knew it, you don't understand your own methods. Negative mass is a zero point hole in space time energy.
I need more than your say so - what evidence do you have that this is not just pincho gibberish?

Space is the energy, electrons are the holes.
Evidence?

the Earth is a lot of holes, and an asteroid is a few holes.
Evidence?

The space time behind the asteroid travels to the asteroid holes, it travels to the Earth holes.
Evidence?

The Inverse square law works both ways. The asteroid moves to the Earth, because the Earth has the most electrons, so the most holes in space time. The asteroid has less, so space time has a greater flow to the Earth than the asteroid. But the flow is 3D, and so the inverse square law is fine. Not only that, but the electrons are now holes surrounded by energy, and mass, and have weight due to the kinetic energy of spin, which still manages to maintain a hole of zero energy. The hole has a down flow, which creates magnetism as an escape flow. This doesn't break the Michelson Morley experiment either, because a photon will travel to the holes in space time, the electrons.
I can't really ask for evidence of this because the is a complete pile of crap. These are random words thrown together devoid of meaning and rationality. If you actually believe that this mess of terms means anything then you are hopelessly deluded

8. Let's take this through a series of known physics, and you will have to combine physics with physics that you don't usually combine together.

First you have the physics of a whirlpool. The water moves towards a hole. The spin around the hole is the highest energy. The hole is the lowest energy. The outside pool is static energy, waiting to move in. You can't swim away from the hole, because the spin has the highest energy, the most weight. The hole creates a vortex. the vortex is Newton's Law that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The spin is X/Z/ small Y, and the Vortex is big Y, small X/Z. We will call this standard whirlpool X/Y/Z and In (As the energy is into the hole).

Change it to space time.
Space moves towards a hole (energy moves towards lower energy) The spin around the hole is the highest energy (the electron), the hole is the lowest energy. Space is static energy. It is harder to move away from the Earth than it is to move through space. The Earth gives you the greater weight. My version completes Newtons Law.. X/Y/Z/In/Out/-Z/-Y/-X (In the whirlpool version Gravity has compressed the 8D into 4D). Now you can put an upside down vortex below the first vortex. The 8D version of the Vortex is flatter. If you take a look at the Milky Way the vortex flattens out into a bar. The flow through the vortex creates a spiral. The difference with -X/-Y/-Z is that they are negative mass, or Dark Matter, whichever you prefer.

Zero energy is a hole, the spin around the hole acts as balance. When you use sliding scales you can move a small piece of brass along the balance line. The bending of space time can be thought of as a dip. If you can imagine moving a brass weight across the dip you have the orbit of a planet. Now do the same for a second planet. Dip, and brass weight, and you get a spiral. Now rock the bend in space time like a saucer around the brass weight.

The answer to the thread is that Gravity gets caught in a spiral that leads back to the beginning again. It doesn't exactly equal zero, but it does change direction.

9. Moderator note: Pincho Paxton has been permanently banned from sciforums for continuing to post meaningless nonsense in Science subforums. Despite numerous warnings and bans, we have observed no change in behaviour.

10. Originally Posted by OnlyMe
The issue I would raise is that, if we accept that mass, meaning rest mass, has an energy component described by E = mc^2, while we can say that the "Total" energy of the universe may be conserved, mass may not.
Why not ? By applying Einstein's Equation if we convert Total Energy of our Universe into Mass ; then this Total Mass of our Universe , also will remain constant .

We can conceive of an interaction where a quantity of mass is converted or released, to or as energy, but we are unable to reverse that process, in any practical way.., yet. Essentially mass can be converted to energy but we are as yet unable to convert energy into mass.
May be at this point of time , we are unable to convert Energy into Mass but during BIGBANG this conversion happened .

Since the universe seems to be dynamic, there is likely mechanisms that result in just that. Our present assumptions, at least to some extent, assume that all of the mass in the universe was generated during the big bang. If that is the case any destruction or conversion of mass to energy, that cannot be matched up against an ongoing conversion of mass from energy, would result in a conservation of Total energy, without any confirmation of a conservation of mass.
" Mass neither can be created nor destroyed ". " Only Mass can be converted into Energy or Energy can be converted into Mass " .

So, where is the question of loss of mass .

Just as an example... The standard model of particle physics defines a proton, its mass and that it is composed or made up of quarks and guons whose total individual masses are not equal to the proton's total mass. Break one proton into its parts, quarks and guons and while you may still have the same energy, the measureable mass is diminished.
May be the diminished mass is converted into undetectable energy .

11. Originally Posted by hansda
Why not ? By applying Einstein's Equation if we convert Total Energy of our Universe into Mass ; then this Total Mass of our Universe , also will remain constant .

May be at this point of time , we are unable to convert Energy into Mass but during BIGBANG this conversion happened .

" Mass neither can be created nor destroyed ". " Only Mass can be converted into Energy or Energy can be converted into Mass " .

So, where is the question of loss of mass .

May be the diminished mass is converted into undetectable energy .
The point is that the equation E = mc^2, is a description of the total energy associated with a specific rest mass. It is not a complete description of mass. It does not exclude that there is anything other than energy involved in what we understand as mass.

That said.., assuming one accepts the big bang as accurately describing of the universe over time, the big bang created mass from energy, which implies there was a time when there was no mass.

It is arrogant to believe on one hand all of the mass in the universe was created and at the same time maintain, that it must remain constant.

While it does appear a sound and logical position to maintain that the TOTAL energy in the universe remains constant and conserved, the same does not automatically follow for what we experience as mass. If and when the energy content associated with a given mass, is conserved through any process, that moves it from its contribution to mass, to any other form or expression of energy.., while the total energy is conserved the total mass is not.

And as I said earlier, I believe that it is likely that a mechanism or mechanisms, do exist in the universe where mass is created, which requires an energy contribution and that while the total energy is conserved and stable, the total mass, may change over time through process(es) of destruction and creation.

This is not so hard to see, in practice. The equation E = mc^2, originates in Einstein's recognition that as an atom emits and absorbs photons! its mass is diminished and increased accordingly. In a sense, when a photon which has no rest mass is emmited, mass is converted to energy and while total energy is conserved, total mass is not. Only should one assume that every photon that is emitted from an atom, is at some time absorbed by another atom, could the process be said to, "OVER TIME" represent a conservation of total mass. But we have no evidence that suggests that every photon emmited is reabsorbed by another atom. We observe photons today we believe we're originally emitted over 14 billion years ago. They represent energy which may once have been a component of mass, that has remained energy throughout the elapsed 14+ billion years.

12. Originally Posted by OnlyMe
The point is that the equation E = mc^2, is a description of the total energy associated with a specific rest mass. It is not a complete description of mass. It does not exclude that there is anything other than energy involved in what we understand as mass.

That said.., assuming one accepts the big bang as accurately describing of the universe over time, the big bang created mass from energy, which implies there was a time when there was no mass.

It is arrogant to believe on one hand all of the mass in the universe was created and at the same time maintain, that it must remain constant.

While it does appear a sound and logical position to maintain that the TOTAL energy in the universe remains constant and conserved, the same does not automatically follow for what we experience as mass. If and when the energy content associated with a given mass, is conserved through any process, that moves it from its contribution to mass, to any other form or expression of energy.., while the total energy is conserved the total mass is not.

And as I said earlier, I believe that it is likely that a mechanism or mechanisms, do exist in the universe where mass is created, which requires an energy contribution and that while the total energy is conserved and stable, the total mass, may change over time through process(es) of destruction and creation.

This is not so hard to see, in practice. The equation E = mc^2, originates in Einstein's recognition that as an atom emits and absorbs photons! its mass is diminished and increased accordingly. In a sense, when a photon which has no rest mass is emmited, mass is converted to energy and while total energy is conserved, total mass is not. Only should one assume that every photon that is emitted from an atom, is at some time absorbed by another atom, could the process be said to, "OVER TIME" represent a conservation of total mass. But we have no evidence that suggests that every photon emmited is reabsorbed by another atom. We observe photons today we believe we're originally emitted over 14 billion years ago. They represent energy which may once have been a component of mass, that has remained energy throughout the elapsed 14+ billion years.

Do you mean to say that ; 'mass can be created or destroyed' ?

13. Originally Posted by hansda
Do you mean to say that ; 'mass can be created or destroyed' ?
We have some evidence to support the idea that mass can be destroyed and in the process be converted to, or release, the energy associated with it.

I "believe" that there is likely a mechanism or mechanisms, that do result in the creation of mass, the process requiring a contribution of energy.

Both of the above, are aside and separate from, the transfer of mass between atoms, in the form of photons. Though the energy released in the destruction of mass, would seem to be predominantly EM radiation or in the form of photons.

14. Originally Posted by OnlyMe
We have some evidence to support the idea that mass can be destroyed and in the process be converted to, or release, the energy associated with it.
What is your idea of creation or destruction of mass ? The way you have explained above , it is basically conversion of mass into energy following Einstein's Equation e=mc*c ; than destruction of mass .

I "believe" that there is likely a mechanism or mechanisms, that do result in the creation of mass, the process requiring a contribution of energy.
Perhaps you are talking about photoelectric effect where photons are generated from energy .

Both of the above, are aside and separate from, the transfer of mass between atoms, in the form of photons. Though the energy released in the destruction of mass, would seem to be predominantly EM radiation or in the form of photons.
But this happens as per Einstein's Equation . So, all the mass are accounted . Where is the unaccounted mass that we can call it 'destruction of mass' ?

15. If gravity is modeled by general relativity GR and gravity was zero, GR would no longer apply, since it only applies if there is gravity. If gravity equal zero the is no gravity phenomena present so GR does not apply.

As an analogy if we have an equation for bugs and there are no bugs, the equation does not apply. One would not insist on talking about biological evolution on the sun since it does not apply. You don't carry forth moot variables.

The definition of work, is force acting over a distance. If gravity was zero there would also be no gravitational work acting. This means entropy would be maximized.

Gravitational work, by increasing pressure, causes local entropy to decrease. If gravity equal zero, there is no work and therefore maximum entropy.

at constant temperature
ΔS=nR*ln(V2/V1)
if V2 is higher than V1 then ΔS>0
and S2 > S1

We will have zero GR and maximum entropy, at gravity equals zero.

What does that look like. Without GR affects, we have an absolute ground state reference that is not relative, since relativity does not apply. In this absolute zero reference there is maximum entropy.

This ground state of maximum entropy is ripe for a change. If energy existed, the zero reference, would red shift the energy to reflect the conservation of energy, needed to increase the entropy maximum.

You still haven't bothered to learn what entropy is. You should stop using the word until you do.

17. Originally Posted by hansda
What is your idea of creation or destruction of mass ? The way you have explained above , it is basically conversion of mass into energy following Einstein's Equation e=mc*c ; than destruction of mass .
It is fairly certain that during thermonuclear reactions, mass is lost, released as energy that cannot be measured as mass. When I used the word destroyed, it was perhaps a bit absolute. I did however, qualify that by associating that destruction with a conversion to, or release of energy.., that is not directly associated with mass.

At least a part of the issue here is that while as we currently understand mass and energy, we can say that mass has at least a component that is energy. We cannot say that all energy has mass or can be transformed into mass.

To clarify this last point, while we can also say today with some certainty, that inertial mass, gravitational mass and rest mass are all equivalent.., the same. We can also say with certainty that the relative velocity of any mass does not have any effect on its grabitational mass. Which establishes that, at least with respect to the kinetic energy associated with an object's velocity, the involved kinetic energy does not contribute to an object's mass, inertial, grabitational or rest mass. And yes it does contribute to an object's relative momentum, which is sometimes confused with mass.

Originally Posted by hansda
Perhaps you are talking about photoelectric effect where photons are generated from energy .
The photoelectric effect is most certainly, at least part, if not in some interpretaions wholly the mechanism involved. The details of this remains largely theoretical. It is very difficult to actually measure the initial and final mass involved, even in controlled reactors the actual mass/energy conversion is small, by comparrison to the limitations necessisary for containment and measurement.

In other words, you could weigh nuclear material before and after use in a reactor, but it would be near impossible to determine any loss of mass resulting from the cooling process required in such reactors and then compare that to any accurate direct measurement of the EM radiation (photons) involved.

Originally Posted by hansda
But this happens as per Einstein's Equation . So, all the mass are accounted . Where is the unaccounted mass that we can call it 'destruction of mass' ?
This is really the point, the equation we are discussing accounts for the total energy involved in such a way we can say with some certainty that energy is conserved, but as an atom's mass is diminished by the emmission of a photon, which has no independent rest mass, and which may never be reintegrated as mass.., as in absorbed by another atom, we cannot say that mass itself is conserved. Mass is conserved only where each photon is reabsorbed by another atom.

Ideally, if you have a closed system, where no photon escapes without being reabsorbed, you could hypothesize that both mass and energy are independently conserved. We cannot say with certainty that the universe is a closed system, though some of our theories suggest that it may be.

If even one photon has been emitted from an atom, that has not yet been absorbed by another atom, the total mass is not conserved while the total energy is.

So, assuming the conditions established by the big bang theory, are there any photons today, left over from emission events in the past which have not and may not ever, be absorbed.., interact with another atom?

You still haven't bothered to learn what entropy is. You should stop using the word until you do.
I have been letting boneheads, make such comments without asking that they prove they know what they are talking about. This misleads others into thinking they know something. I set a trap to differentiate boneheads. How about explaining entropy to too us to make sure you are not full of crap?

I will assume a lack of response or evasion means full of crap.

Salad is good for you compared to your junk food.

If gravity equals zero, there is no gravity and therefore no GR. Including GR in any such analysis will misleading since it will imply things that are not even appropriate to the conditions.

19. Entropy is the measure of disorder in a closed system.

20. In chemical engineering, the principles of thermodynamics are commonly applied to "open systems", i.e. those in which heat, work, and mass flow across the system boundary. In a system in which there are flows of both heat () and work, i.e. (shaft work) and P(dV/dt) (pressure-volume work), across the system boundaries, the heat flow, but not the work flow, causes a change in the entropy of the system. This rate of entropy change is where T is the absolute thermodynamic temperature of the system at the point of the heat flow. If, in addition, there are mass flows across the system boundaries, the total entropy of the system will also change due to this convected flow.
I am used to dealing with open systems and entropy. Closed systems is something you learn in freshman thermo since it is easier to deal with.

For an open system:

the entropy balance equation for an open thermodynamic system is:[36]

where
first term= the net rate of entropy flow due to the flows of mass into and out of the system (where = entropy per unit mass).
second term= the rate of entropy flow due to the flow of heat across the system boundary.
third term= the rate of internal generation of entropy within the system.

If we started with a cloud of stellar gas and let gravity act, we have an open system since we won;t be able to contain all the heat that will be generated by the work. The gravity is our engine driving a work cycle based on force over changing distance. There is mass transfer and an increase in internal pressure as gravity gets stronger. This will generate heat, so we also have heat leaving the system. My first post showed the entropy change for a volume decrease of an ideal gas.

Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•