Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #379467 > unrolled thread

The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-19 09:30 +1100
    Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 16:09 -0700
      Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 00:23 +0100
        Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 16:40 -0700
          Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 08:51 +0100
    Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-03-18 17:23 -0700
      Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-20 03:43 +1100
      Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-20 12:11 -0500
        Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-21 06:46 +1100
    Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2016-03-19 07:26 -0700
      Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-20 03:50 +1100
        Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-19 11:56 -0700
          Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. cryptoclearance <cryptoclearance@cryptoclearance.net> - 2016-03-19 19:48 +0000
            Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-19 22:42 +0100
              Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. cryptoclearance <cryptoclearance@cryptoclearance.net> - 2016-03-19 22:10 +0000
        Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2016-03-20 08:20 -0700
          Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-21 06:55 +1100
            Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 17:27 -0700
              Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-21 12:13 +1100
                Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 20:48 -0700
                Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-22 21:09 +0100
                Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-22 23:19 +0100
                  Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-23 09:46 +1100
                    Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-23 09:43 -0500
                    Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-23 19:11 +0100
                      Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 13:15 -0500
                        Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-23 20:08 +0100
                          Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 14:19 -0500
                            Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-24 09:34 +1100
                              Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-24 02:05 +0100
                                Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-24 13:11 +1100
                                  Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-24 20:54 +0100
                                    Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-25 09:09 +1100
                                      Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-24 23:54 +0100
                                        Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-25 22:38 +1100
                                          Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-25 13:59 +0100
                                          Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-25 21:45 +0100
                                            Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-26 14:33 +1100
                                              Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-26 05:00 +0100
                                                Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-03-26 15:18 +1100
                                                  Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Bojana Kudryavtseva <bojkud@rtyn56h67i.org> - 2016-03-26 10:18 +0000
                                                  Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-26 14:30 +0100
                                                    Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-26 15:53 +0100
                                                      Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-27 20:48 +1100
                                                    Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-03-27 10:08 +1100
                                                      Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 09:48 -0500
                                                Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Bojana Kudryavtseva <bojkud@rtyn56h67i.org> - 2016-03-26 10:17 +0000
        Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-22 12:35 +1100
          Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 07:22 -0500
          Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-25 22:23 +1100
            Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-26 15:48 +1100
              Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-03-27 10:11 +1100
                Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-27 13:11 +1100
                  Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-27 20:40 +1100
                Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 09:49 -0500
                  Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-28 21:53 +0200
                    Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-03-29 09:54 +1100
                  Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-03-29 09:58 +1100
                    Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 08:24 -0500
                      Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-08 17:18 +1000
                        Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-08 08:40 -0700
                          Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-09 08:36 +1000
                            Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-08 20:38 -0700
                              Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-09 19:54 +1000
                                Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-09 05:29 -0700
                                  Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-10 18:07 +1000
                                    Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-10 06:04 -0700
                                    Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-10 19:46 -0700
                                      Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-11 05:14 -0700
                                      Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-12 08:03 +1000
                                        Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-11 15:56 -0700
                                          Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-12 19:48 +1000
                                            Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-12 05:29 -0700
    Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:38 -0500
      Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-20 03:44 +1100

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#380183

HGW wrote:

>>What *you* really need to know is how to consult introductory resources
>>on physics.
> 
> You don't understand the question so you can hardly mark comments about
> its answer.

"I was a late developer, so I thought with an adult's mind, but with the 
knowledge of a child"

- Einstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380199

 wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 05:00:36 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn 
> <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> On 26/03/2016 7:45 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> The explanation is that you have the misconception that “mass 
>>>> constitutes a solid object”.  […] What the layman […] calls a
>>>> “massive object” is […] actually made up of constituents held
>>>> together by fundamental interactions (also, “forces”): […]
>>> 
>>> Yes we know all that. Matter is made of smaller bits of matter, all
>>> of which have mass. ..and part of the mass is associated with
>>> binding energy. That doesn't tell us anything.
>> 
>> It does not tell *you* anything.  It tells *me* that there is more to 
>> matter than mass, and that assuming otherwise is the cause of your 
>> misconception about how electron–positron annihilation works.
> 
> It tells you nothing other than the fact that it does happen.

Incorrect.

It tells me that because both mass and energy are properties of an object,
and theory predicts, as experiment confirms, that they are equivalent, the
interacting particles have both mass and energy, that the total energy of
the particle comes from its mass m *and* its momentum p, and that this
energy can be converted into other forms of energy upon interaction in such
a way that the quantity of total *energy* of this system is *conserved*.

So that if the produced photons are moving relative to the center-of-
momentum frame of the interaction – and they *are* *both* moving relative to
it *at the speed of light* –, each of them must have momentum, therefore can
have zero mass but not zero total energy, which is why the positron *cannot*
have negative mass.

The annihilation reaction is:

  e⁻ + e⁺ → γ + γ

The total energies must be

  for the electron: E_e⁻ = √((m_e⁻ c²)² + (p_e⁻ c)²)
  for the positron: E_e⁺ = √((m_e⁺ c²)² + (p_e⁺ c)²)

  for one photon:   E_γ  = E(m_γ = 0) = p_γ c = ℏ k × c = ℎ f∕c × c = ℎ f

Therefore:

  E_e⁻                      + E_e⁺                      = 2 E_γ

  √((m_e⁻ c²)² + (p_e⁻ c)²) + √((m_e⁺ c²)² + (p_e⁺ c)²) = 2 ℎ f

Why at least *two* photons?  Because total momentum must *also* be a
conserved quantity, and as the electron and the positron interact (when they
collide, if you will) they have opposite velocities v⃗, therefore opposite
momentum p⃗, in the center-of-momentum frame (i.e., for an observer for
which we define that they are at rest in the collision point):

  p⃗_e⁻ = m_e⁻ v⃗_e⁻∕√(1 − (|v⃗_e⁻|∕c)²) > 0 as v⃗_e⁺ > 0
  p⃗_e⁺ = m_e⁺ v⃗_e⁺∕√(1 − (|v⃗_e⁺|∕c)²) < 0 as v⃗_e⁺ < 0

So if total momentum is to be conserved, at least two photons have to be
produced that have opposite momentum as well.  And indeed, one observes that
at least two photons *are* produced; when exactly two, they are going off in
opposite directions from the collision point.  (This is the *physical* basis
of the PET scan in medicine.)

  p⃗_e⁻ + p⃗_e⁺ = 0⃗ = p⃗_γ₁ + p⃗_γ₂  ⇒  p⃗_γ₁ = −p⃗_γ₂ ⇒  v⃗_γ₁ = −v⃗_γ₂

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation#Electron.E2.80.93positron_annihilation>

None of this works out if m_e⁺ < 0 as you claim.  But it works out perfectly
if not only m_e⁺ > 0, but m_e⁺ = m_e⁻.

Which is – as *you are refusing to answer the question put to you* in the
other subthread –

  What makes an antiparticle different from the particle it is
  the antiparticle of?

– consistent with the *actual* definition for “antiparticle”:

  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle>

  “Corresponding to most kinds of particles, there is an associated
   antimatter antiparticle with the *same* mass and opposite *charge*
   (including electric charge [‘q’]).”

(emphasis and [comment] mine).

So, as you agreed that “the positron is the antiparticle of the electron”,
the positron *cannot* have negative mass or any other mass than the mass of
the electron *for that reason, too*.

Because the electron does _not_ have negative, but *positive* mass, and
neither negative mass nor any other mass than the mass of the electron would
be “the same mass” as the mass of the electron.

So, *in fact*, contrary to your claim:

  m_e⁺ =  m_e⁻

  q_e⁻ = −1 e
  q_e⁺ = +1 e

  q_e⁺ = −q_e⁻

See also: <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=electron+vs.+positron>

>>>> […] when you consider that we now know that 98.7 % to 99 % of the
>>>> mass of protons and neutrons […] does _not_ come from their
>>>> constituent quarks [1], but from the space between the quarks, from
>>>> the *energy* of *empty space* [2], and that atoms are mostly empty
>>>> as well¹, it should not be at all surprising that matter “can
>>>> change into pure radiation”. And it should not be surprising that
>>>> where there is so much empty space, radiation can “pass through
>>>> most massive objects”.
>>> 
>>> Yes we know all that.
>> 
>> The truth is: Now that I have told *you*, *you* know it.  Because
>> people who know this would not claim that the positron could have
>> negative mass.
> 
> Well since no definition exists for either positive or negative mass you 
> seem mumbling nonsense.

Oh for crying out loud.  *You* *were* *the* *only* *one* *here* claiming
that the positron could have “negative mass”, and now you are saying there
would be “no definition” for “negative mass” in the first place?  What were
you blathering about, then?

Since a definition exists for (positive) mass, namely in classical mechanics
that it is “the quantity of matter” that is the cause of a force, gravity,
that attracts objects with (positive) masses m₁ and m₂ to one another [1] –
F⃗₁₂ = −G m₁ m₂ ^r⃗₁₂∕|r⃗₁₂|² –, what follows is that negative mass must
cause a force with opposite direction, antigravity (if you will), that
repels an object with negative mass m₁ from an object with positive mass m₂.

Since in relativity, mass is defined in terms of the energy E₀ that an
object has at relative rest – m = E₀∕c² –, it means that positive mass
follows from an object that has positive rest energy, while negative mass
follows from an object that has negative rest energy.

So, out of ignorance, *you* have been “mumbling nonsense” instead.

_____________
[1] Isaac NEWTON (1713/1726). “The Mathematical Principles of Natural
    Philosophy”. Translation by Andrew MOTTE (1792).  Book Ⅰ, Def. Ⅰ
    and Ⅴ.

<https://books.google.com/books?id=Tm0FAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Newton+mathematical+principles+Motte&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=12&as_miny_is=1720&as_maxm_is=12&as_maxy_is=1800&num=20&as_brr=3>

>>> It does not tell us anything about the transformation from mas to 
>>> energy.
>> 
>> Mass is not transformed to energy.  *Only* *you* have the
>> misconception that it would be, that those two would be independent
>> properties and quantities.
> 
> You have no asnwer. I dout if you have ever even considered the that the 
> question exists.

The answer is, as is known to *us* – not you – since more than a century (1905),

  E = √((m c²)² + (p c)²)

which reduces to

  E = m c²

for objects at relative rest (p = 0).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence#Applicability_of_the_strict_mass.E2.80.93energy_equivalence_formula.2C_E_.3D_mc2>

>>> What we really need to know is more information about the physical 
>>> nature of fields.
>> What *you* really need to know is how to consult introductory
>> resources on physics.
> 
> You don't understand the question so you can hardly mark comments about 
> its answer.

You wish.  Your problem is that you are asking a nonsensical question (“How
can mass turn/change/be transformed into energy?”), and expect an answer to
*this* that makes sense.  So it is *your* misconception, *your* mistake; it
is not one of the *few* people who are *still* replying to you.

EOD


PointedEars
-- 
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380207

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote on 26.03.2016 14:30:

> Oh for crying out loud.  *You* *were* *the* *only* *one* *here* claiming
> that the positron could have “negative mass”, and now you are saying there
> would be “no definition” for “negative mass” in the first place?  What were
> you blathering about, then?
> 
> Since a definition exists for (positive) mass, namely in classical mechanics
> that it is “the quantity of matter” that is the cause of a force, gravity,
> that attracts objects with (positive) masses m₁ and m₂ to one another [1] –
> F⃗₁₂ = −G m₁ m₂ ^r⃗₁₂∕|r⃗₁₂|² –, what follows is that negative mass must
> cause a force with opposite direction, antigravity (if you will), that
> repels an object with negative mass m₁ from an object with positive mass m₂.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  (!)

> […]
> So, out of ignorance, *you* have been “mumbling nonsense” instead.
> 
> _____________
> [1] Isaac NEWTON (1713/1726). “The Mathematical Principles of Natural
>     Philosophy”. Translation by Andrew MOTTE (1792).  Book Ⅰ, Def. Ⅰ
                                                ^^^^
>     and Ⅴ.

That’s _1729_ (“ⅯⅮⅭⅭⅩⅩⅠⅩ”), of course:

> <https://books.google.com/books?id=Tm0FAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Newton+mathematical+principles+Motte&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=12&as_miny_is=1720&as_maxm_is=12&as_maxy_is=1800&num=20&as_brr=3>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2/es-matrix>
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380252

On 27/03/16 01:53, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote on 26.03.2016 14:30:
>
>> Oh for crying out loud.  *You* *were* *the* *only* *one* *here* claiming
>> that the positron could have “negative mass”, and now you are saying there
>> would be “no definition” for “negative mass” in the first place?  What were
>> you blathering about, then?
>>
>> Since a definition exists for (positive) mass, namely in classical mechanics
>> that it is “the quantity of matter” that is the cause of a force, gravity,
>> that attracts objects with (positive) masses m₁ and m₂ to one another [1] –
>> F⃗₁₂ = −G m₁ m₂ ^r⃗₁₂∕|r⃗₁₂|² –, what follows is that negative mass must
>> cause a force with opposite direction, antigravity (if you will), that
>> repels an object with negative mass m₁ from an object with positive mass m₂.
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    (!)

The terms positive and negative have no mathematical significance. An 
electron is not described as 'negative' because it has been removed.
You are obviously a raw beginner at not only physics but the art of 
using your brain.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380225

On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 14:30:15 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

...a lot of standard college stuff about particle annihilation. 

>> Well since no definition exists for either positive or negative mass you 
>> seem mumbling nonsense.
>
>Oh for crying out loud.  *You* *were* *the* *only* *one* *here* claiming
>that the positron could have “negative mass”, and now you are saying there
>would be “no definition” for “negative mass” in the first place?  What were
>you blathering about, then?

You seem to be having trouble understanding what the word 'negative' implies.
Do you really believe that an electron has the  word literally carved on
it?...and a positron is labeled in big print 'I'M POSITIVE'.

The terms are purely conventional. Neither you nor anyone else knows precisely
why a + particle is different from a - one except that it has  + charge rather
than a -one. and those have different quarks or some other undefined property.

This discussion arose because Harnagel claimed that a negative mass, if such
existed, would accelerate in the opposite direction to the applied force
vector. I showed the obvious impossibility of that.

My point is, just because we use the terms positive an negative does not mean
that they should have an attached + or - sign in front of them when used in an
equation.

There is no reason to assume that the a's in a = F/m and a = F/(-m) are not
identical in all respects.  

>Since a definition exists for (positive) mass, namely in classical mechanics
>that it is “the quantity of matter” that is the cause of a force, gravity,
>that attracts objects with (positive) masses m? and m? to one another [1] –
>F??? = ?G m? m? ^r????|r???|² –, what follows is that negative mass must
>cause a force with opposite direction, antigravity (if you will), that
>repels an object with negative mass m? from an object with positive mass m?.
>
>Since in relativity, mass is defined in terms of the energy E? that an
>object has at relative rest – m = E??c² –, it means that positive mass
>follows from an object that has positive rest energy, while negative mass
>follows from an object that has negative rest energy.

No that does not follow. The positive and negative labels are purely
conventional and are not neccessarily mathematical.  

>So, out of ignorance, *you* have been “mumbling nonsense” instead.

You are still wallowing in scholboy stuff. Try to think, man! 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380333

On 3/26/2016 6:08 PM, HGW wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 14:30:15 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>

>> So, out of ignorance, *you* have been “mumbling nonsense” instead.
>
> You are still wallowing in scholboy stuff. Try to think, man!
>

You're the pig I was telling Thomas "PointedEars" Lahn about. But I 
think you know that.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380182

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>> Yes we know all that. Matter is made of smaller bits of matter, all of
>> which have mass. ..and part of the mass is associated with binding
>> energy. That doesn't tell us anything.
> 
> It does not tell *you* anything.  It tells *me* that there is more to
> matter than mass, and that assuming otherwise is the cause of your
> misconception about how electron–positron annihilation works.

Aulta mie face, aulta mie face, beetch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379785

On 20/03/2016 3:50 AM, HGW wrote:
> On 20/03/16 01:26, pcardinale@volcanomail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 3:30:17 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote:
>>> According to several Einstein worshippers a force applied to an
>>> anti particle will accelerate that particle in the direction
>>> opposite to that of the applied force vector.
>>
>> It's unlikely that H knows of any "Einstein worshippers", it's almost
>> certainly something he made up.
>>
>> No one knowledgeable of SR & GR would make such a statement as that
>> would be saying that relativity requires negative mass (which it does
>> not).
>>
>> This is typical behavior for the Henry.  He just makes up crap then
>> spews it.  He has no regard for truth.
>
> You close colleague and fellow idiot Harnagel said that the electric
> force acting on a positron would drive it in the same direction as it
> would an electron IF a positron had negative mass.

But that's not equivalent to your original claim.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379820

On 3/21/2016 8:35 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 20/03/2016 3:50 AM, HGW wrote:
>> On 20/03/16 01:26, pcardinale@volcanomail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 3:30:17 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote:
>>>> According to several Einstein worshippers a force applied to an
>>>> anti particle will accelerate that particle in the direction
>>>> opposite to that of the applied force vector.
>>>
>>> It's unlikely that H knows of any "Einstein worshippers", it's almost
>>> certainly something he made up.
>>>
>>> No one knowledgeable of SR & GR would make such a statement as that
>>> would be saying that relativity requires negative mass (which it does
>>> not).
>>>
>>> This is typical behavior for the Henry.  He just makes up crap then
>>> spews it.  He has no regard for truth.
>>
>> You close colleague and fellow idiot Harnagel said that the electric
>> force acting on a positron would drive it in the same direction as it
>> would an electron IF a positron had negative mass.

Yes, it would IF a positron had negative mass. But since it is observed 
not to do that, then we have evidence that it has positive mass. As well 
as the mass of positronium. As well as the mass of antihydrogen.

>
> But that's not equivalent to your original claim.

That's true too.

>
> Sylvia.
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380123

On 22/03/16 12:35, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 20/03/2016 3:50 AM, HGW wrote:

>>> This is typical behavior for the Henry.  He just makes up crap then
>>> spews it.  He has no regard for truth.
>>
>> You close colleague and fellow idiot Harnagel said that the electric
>> force acting on a positron would drive it in the same direction as it
>> would an electron IF a positron had negative mass.
>
> But that's not equivalent to your original claim.

what claim?

> Sylvia.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380174

On 25/03/2016 10:23 PM, HGW wrote:
> On 22/03/16 12:35, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 20/03/2016 3:50 AM, HGW wrote:
>
>>>> This is typical behavior for the Henry.  He just makes up crap
>>>>  then spews it.  He has no regard for truth.
>>>
>>> You close colleague and fellow idiot Harnagel said that the
>>> electric force acting on a positron would drive it in the same
>>> direction as it would an electron IF a positron had negative
>>> mass.
>>
>> But that's not equivalent to your original claim.
>
> what claim?

The claim that "According to several Einstein worshippers a force
applied to an antiparticle will accelerate that particle in the 
direction opposite to that of the applied force vector."

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380226

On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 15:48:31 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
wrote:

>On 25/03/2016 10:23 PM, HGW wrote:
>> On 22/03/16 12:35, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 20/03/2016 3:50 AM, HGW wrote:
>>
>>>>> This is typical behavior for the Henry.  He just makes up crap
>>>>>  then spews it.  He has no regard for truth.
>>>>
>>>> You close colleague and fellow idiot Harnagel said that the
>>>> electric force acting on a positron would drive it in the same
>>>> direction as it would an electron IF a positron had negative
>>>> mass.
>>>
>>> But that's not equivalent to your original claim.
>>
>> what claim?
>
>The claim that "According to several Einstein worshippers a force
>applied to an antiparticle will accelerate that particle in the 
>direction opposite to that of the applied force vector."

That is true. It happened. Harnagel, supported by Draper assumed that if a
positron had negative mass it would be deflected by a field in the same
direction as would an electron. 

>Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380234

On 27/03/2016 10:11 AM, HGW wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 15:48:31 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
> wrote:
>
>> On 25/03/2016 10:23 PM, HGW wrote:
>>> On 22/03/16 12:35, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 20/03/2016 3:50 AM, HGW wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> This is typical behavior for the Henry.  He just makes up crap
>>>>>>   then spews it.  He has no regard for truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> You close colleague and fellow idiot Harnagel said that the
>>>>> electric force acting on a positron would drive it in the same
>>>>> direction as it would an electron IF a positron had negative
>>>>> mass.
>>>>
>>>> But that's not equivalent to your original claim.
>>>
>>> what claim?
>>
>> The claim that "According to several Einstein worshippers a force
>> applied to an antiparticle will accelerate that particle in the
>> direction opposite to that of the applied force vector."
>
> That is true. It happened. Harnagel, supported by Draper assumed that if a
> positron had negative mass it would be deflected by a field in the same
> direction as would an electron.
>

Can you really not see that they're not the same thing at all?

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380251

On 27/03/16 13:11, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 27/03/2016 10:11 AM, HGW wrote:

>>>>>
>>>>> But that's not equivalent to your original claim.
>>>>
>>>> what claim?
>>>
>>> The claim that "According to several Einstein worshippers a force
>>> applied to an antiparticle will accelerate that particle in the
>>> direction opposite to that of the applied force vector."
>>
>> That is true. It happened. Harnagel, supported by Draper assumed that
>> if a
>> positron had negative mass it would be deflected by a field in the same
>> direction as would an electron.
>>
>
> Can you really not see that they're not the same thing at all?

I can. He apparently cannot.  And you are apparently incapable of 
understanding that the stupidity is all his.

> Sylvia.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380334

On 3/26/2016 6:11 PM, HGW wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 15:48:31 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
> wrote:
>
>> On 25/03/2016 10:23 PM, HGW wrote:
>>> On 22/03/16 12:35, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 20/03/2016 3:50 AM, HGW wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> This is typical behavior for the Henry.  He just makes up crap
>>>>>>   then spews it.  He has no regard for truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> You close colleague and fellow idiot Harnagel said that the
>>>>> electric force acting on a positron would drive it in the same
>>>>> direction as it would an electron IF a positron had negative
>>>>> mass.
>>>>
>>>> But that's not equivalent to your original claim.
>>>
>>> what claim?
>>
>> The claim that "According to several Einstein worshippers a force
>> applied to an antiparticle will accelerate that particle in the
>> direction opposite to that of the applied force vector."

That claim is not true.

>
> That is true. It happened. Harnagel, supported by Draper assumed that if a
> positron had negative mass it would be deflected by a field in the same
> direction as would an electron.

And supported by me as well. This claim is true.

You see the difference between the two claims?

>
>> Sylvia.
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380365

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 3/26/2016 6:11 PM, HGW wrote:
>> That is true. It happened. Harnagel, supported by Draper assumed that if
>> a positron had negative mass it would be deflected by a field in the same
>> direction as would an electron.
> 
> And supported by me as well. This claim is true.

ISTM that whether it is true depends on the kind of field.
 

PointedEars
-- 
Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
   does it take to change a light bulb?  
A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380388

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 21:53:03 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 3/26/2016 6:11 PM, HGW wrote:
>>> That is true. It happened. Harnagel, supported by Draper assumed that if
>>> a positron had negative mass it would be deflected by a field in the same
>>> direction as would an electron.
>> 
>> And supported by me as well. This claim is true.
>
>ISTM that whether it is true depends on the kind of field.

Bodkin is so stupid he did not understand that.
But you are also wrong. 

If it was a gravity field alone, then -ve mass would imply that they moved in
opposite directions but only IF the negative sign was really of mathematical
significance. If gravity and electric fields were applied, we can be sure that
the latter would cause aceleration in opposite directions but again we cannot
be sure about the affect of a gravity field.

However, he idea of anything accelerating in oposite direction to an applied
force would appear to be impossible because it would manufacture energy.  

>PointedEars

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380391

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 09:49:30 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 3/26/2016 6:11 PM, HGW wrote:

>>>>> But that's not equivalent to your original claim.
>>>>
>>>> what claim?
>>>
>>> The claim that "According to several Einstein worshippers a force
>>> applied to an antiparticle will accelerate that particle in the
>>> direction opposite to that of the applied force vector."
>
>That claim is not true.

That is what Harnagel claimed...and you agreed with him.

>> That is true. It happened. Harnagel, supported by Draper assumed that if a
>> positron had negative mass it would be deflected by a field in the same
>> direction as would an electron.
>
>And supported by me as well. This claim is true.
>
>You see the difference between the two claims?

There is no difference. The only force is the electrical one. You are claiming
that the applied electrical force would cause an acceleration towards the force
if the mass was negative.

>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381088

On 3/28/2016 5:58 PM, HGW wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 09:49:30 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/26/2016 6:11 PM, HGW wrote:
>
>>>>>> But that's not equivalent to your original claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> what claim?
>>>>
>>>> The claim that "According to several Einstein worshippers a force
>>>> applied to an antiparticle will accelerate that particle in the
>>>> direction opposite to that of the applied force vector."
>>
>> That claim is not true.
>
> That is what Harnagel claimed...and you agreed with him.

I don't think so. Note the confusion below.

>
>>> That is true. It happened. Harnagel, supported by Draper assumed that if a
>>> positron had negative mass it would be deflected by a field in the same
>>> direction as would an electron.
>>
>> And supported by me as well. This claim is true.
>>
>> You see the difference between the two claims?
>
> There is no difference.

Of course there is.

> The only force is the electrical one. You are claiming
> that the applied electrical force would cause an acceleration towards the force
> if the mass was negative.

Heck no.

>
>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381131

On 07/04/16 23:24, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 3/28/2016 5:58 PM, HGW wrote:

>>>>> The claim that "According to several Einstein worshippers a force
>>>>> applied to an antiparticle will accelerate that particle in the
>>>>> direction opposite to that of the applied force vector."
>>>
>>> That claim is not true.

Harnagel definitely said that if a positron had negative mass, it would 
be deflected in the same direction as an electron by an electric field.

I pointed out the impossibility of that.

>>>
>>> And supported by me as well. This claim is true.
>>>
>>> You see the difference between the two claims?
>>
>> There is no difference.
>
> Of course there is.
>
>> The only force is the electrical one. You are claiming
>> that the applied electrical force would cause an acceleration towards
>> the force
>> if the mass was negative.
>
> Heck no.

Then what properties might 'negative' mass possess? The word negative' 
itself gives the wrong impression.
A positive and a negative mass could conceivably unite to form zero mass 
yet still be affected by gravity or any other applied force in the same 
way as would two identical masses.
....OR, maybe inertial mass can be different from gravitational mass 
under certain circumstances. I already suggested that possibility as an 
option IF the gravitational bending of light DID actually turn out to be 
double that predicted by Newton...(which is extremely unlikely).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web