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

Groups > sci.physics > #713328 > unrolled thread

Anti-Mass

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Anti-Mass "Michael J. Strickland" <michael580603@gmail.com> - 2018-11-19 07:35 -0800
    Re: Anti-Mass mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-19 08:40 -0800
    Re: Anti-Mass Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-11-19 14:54 -0800
      Re: Anti-Mass mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-19 17:58 -0800
        Re: Anti-Mass Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-11-20 14:32 -0800
          Entropy eventually kills everything, including (pseudo) "black holes". Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-11-20 14:50 -0800
          Re: Anti-Mass "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-11-21 18:25 -0800
            Re: Anti-Mass mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-21 21:06 -0800
              Re: Anti-Mass mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-22 20:07 -0800
                Re: Anti-Mass "Michael J. Strickland" <michael580603@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 20:01 -0800
                  Re: Anti-Mass mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-30 10:14 -0800
                  Re: Anti-Mass mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-13 18:11 -0800
                    Re: Anti-Mass "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 09:44 -0800
                      Re: Anti-Mass benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 14:00 -0500
                        Re: Anti-Mass "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 15:33 -0800
                          Re: Anti-Mass benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 20:25 -0500
                      Re: Anti-Mass "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-12-14 16:56 -0800

#713328 — Anti-Mass

Has anyone found my anti-mass (negative mass values) yet?

It is not anti-matter.

I haven't decided whether it will attract regular mass or repel it (we have math for either).

If mass and anti-mass repel each other, it will give us easy anti-gravity.

If mass and anti-mass attract each other, bulk matter will be modeled as equal parts mass and anti-mass.

What we see as the gravitational force is just the residual force of the equal parts mass and anti-mass in matter polarizing each other and attracting.

Personally, being an EE, my vote is for going with the EM convention and making mass and anti-mass attract while same sign mass repels.

This might go against the grain since we have "brainwashed" ourselves into a "mass is always positive" universe.

Mike

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#713344

On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 7:35:20 AM UTC-8, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> Has anyone found my anti-mass (negative mass values) yet?
> 
> It is not anti-matter.
> 
> I haven't decided whether it will attract regular mass or repel it (we have math for either).
> 
> If mass and anti-mass repel each other, it will give us easy anti-gravity.
> 
> If mass and anti-mass attract each other, bulk matter will be modeled as equal parts mass and anti-mass.
> 
> What we see as the gravitational force is just the residual force of the equal parts mass and anti-mass in matter polarizing each other and attracting.
> 
> Personally, being an EE, my vote is for going with the EM convention and making mass and anti-mass attract while same sign mass repels.
> 
> This might go against the grain since we have "brainwashed" ourselves into a "mass is always positive" universe.
> 
> Mike

There is no anti light or atom.
It is no brainwash. The anti-world is in the negative...

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

#713423

On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 7:35:20 AM UTC-8, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> Has anyone found my anti-mass (negative mass values) yet?
> 
> It is not anti-matter.
> 
> I haven't decided whether it will attract regular mass or repel it (we have math for either).
> 
> If mass and anti-mass repel each other, it will give us easy anti-gravity.
> 
> If mass and anti-mass attract each other, bulk matter will be modeled as equal parts mass and anti-mass.
> 
> What we see as the gravitational force is just the residual force of the equal parts mass and anti-mass in matter polarizing each other and attracting.
> 
> Personally, being an EE, my vote is for going with the EM convention and making mass and anti-mass attract while same sign mass repels.
> 
> This might go against the grain since we have "brainwashed" ourselves into a "mass is always positive" universe.
> 
> Mike


For Hawking radiation to work, anti-mass must be added to a black hole.

Double-A

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

#713450

On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 2:54:58 PM UTC-8, Double-A wrote:
> On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 7:35:20 AM UTC-8, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> > Has anyone found my anti-mass (negative mass values) yet?
> > 
> > It is not anti-matter.
> > 
> > I haven't decided whether it will attract regular mass or repel it (we have math for either).
> > 
> > If mass and anti-mass repel each other, it will give us easy anti-gravity.
> > 
> > If mass and anti-mass attract each other, bulk matter will be modeled as equal parts mass and anti-mass.
> > 
> > What we see as the gravitational force is just the residual force of the equal parts mass and anti-mass in matter polarizing each other and attracting.
> > 
> > Personally, being an EE, my vote is for going with the EM convention and making mass and anti-mass attract while same sign mass repels.
> > 
> > This might go against the grain since we have "brainwashed" ourselves into a "mass is always positive" universe.
> > 
> > Mike
> 
> 
> For Hawking radiation to work, anti-mass must be added to a black hole.
> 
> Double-A

Why would negative always fall in and positive escapes?
They would average out. No Hawking Radiation.
No black holes...
Hawking said that himself but went back to his fame
instead of an honesty.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#713596

On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 5:59:01 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 2:54:58 PM UTC-8, Double-A wrote:
> > On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 7:35:20 AM UTC-8, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> > > Has anyone found my anti-mass (negative mass values) yet?
> > > 
> > > It is not anti-matter.
> > > 
> > > I haven't decided whether it will attract regular mass or repel it (we have math for either).
> > > 
> > > If mass and anti-mass repel each other, it will give us easy anti-gravity.
> > > 
> > > If mass and anti-mass attract each other, bulk matter will be modeled as equal parts mass and anti-mass.
> > > 
> > > What we see as the gravitational force is just the residual force of the equal parts mass and anti-mass in matter polarizing each other and attracting.
> > > 
> > > Personally, being an EE, my vote is for going with the EM convention and making mass and anti-mass attract while same sign mass repels.
> > > 
> > > This might go against the grain since we have "brainwashed" ourselves into a "mass is always positive" universe.
> > > 
> > > Mike
> > 
> > 
> > For Hawking radiation to work, anti-mass must be added to a black hole.
> > 
> > Double-A
> 
> Why would negative always fall in and positive escapes?
> They would average out. No Hawking Radiation.
> No black holes...
> Hawking said that himself but went back to his fame
> instead of an honesty.
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch


Good thinking.

Double-A

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

#713599 — Entropy eventually kills everything, including (pseudo) "black holes".

Entropy eventually kills everything, including (pseudo) "black holes".

  2016, NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope found 
  the brightest objects known to man: gamma-ray blazars,
  Two Trillion times the sun's output.

  They're _ young, of course, just 1.4 billion years old, 
  multi-billion-solar-mass black holes, in "Active Galactic Nuclei".

  Like The Known Universe itself, blazars had more exergy,
  less entropy, when they were _ younger. 

  At the start, there was "no entropy" ( no time, no space ), just "eXergy" 
  ( a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ).

  Everything decays, even gravity; hence the arrow of time.
  Entropy converts blazars into SpaceTime.  Gravity is residual eXergy.

  Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy,
  leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
  but none of the eXergy.  

  Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 ) tells us 
  that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
  -- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
     is the most likley outcome.

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

#713915

On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 2:32:59 PM UTC-8, Double-A wrote:
> On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 5:59:01 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 2:54:58 PM UTC-8, Double-A wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 7:35:20 AM UTC-8, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> > > > Has anyone found my anti-mass (negative mass values) yet?
> > > > 
> > > > It is not anti-matter.
> > > > 
> > > > I haven't decided whether it will attract regular mass or repel it (we have math for either).
> > > > 
> > > > If mass and anti-mass repel each other, it will give us easy anti-gravity.
> > > > 
> > > > If mass and anti-mass attract each other, bulk matter will be modeled as equal parts mass and anti-mass.
> > > > 
> > > > What we see as the gravitational force is just the residual force of the equal parts mass and anti-mass in matter polarizing each other and attracting.
> > > > 
> > > > Personally, being an EE, my vote is for going with the EM convention and making mass and anti-mass attract while same sign mass repels.
> > > > 
> > > > This might go against the grain since we have "brainwashed" ourselves into a "mass is always positive" universe.
> > > > 
> > > > Mike
> > > 
> > > 
> > > For Hawking radiation to work, anti-mass must be added to a black hole.
> > > 
> > > Double-A
> > 
> > Why would negative always fall in and positive escapes?
> > They would average out. No Hawking Radiation.
> > No black holes...
> > Hawking said that himself but went back to his fame
> > instead of an honesty.
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> 
> 
> Good thinking.
> 
> Double-A


Once in a BH nothing ever comes out.Lots of stuff outside the event horizon is moving very fast.Some collide and go on there way back into deep space.This is the radiation that I see. Calling it radiation kind of gives it a twist that's deceiving .Bert

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

#713934

On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 6:26:35 PM UTC-8, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 2:32:59 PM UTC-8, Double-A wrote:
> > On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 5:59:01 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 2:54:58 PM UTC-8, Double-A wrote:
> > > > On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 7:35:20 AM UTC-8, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> > > > > Has anyone found my anti-mass (negative mass values) yet?
> > > > > 
> > > > > It is not anti-matter.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I haven't decided whether it will attract regular mass or repel it (we have math for either).
> > > > > 
> > > > > If mass and anti-mass repel each other, it will give us easy anti-gravity.
> > > > > 
> > > > > If mass and anti-mass attract each other, bulk matter will be modeled as equal parts mass and anti-mass.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What we see as the gravitational force is just the residual force of the equal parts mass and anti-mass in matter polarizing each other and attracting.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Personally, being an EE, my vote is for going with the EM convention and making mass and anti-mass attract while same sign mass repels.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This might go against the grain since we have "brainwashed" ourselves into a "mass is always positive" universe.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Mike
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > For Hawking radiation to work, anti-mass must be added to a black hole.
> > > > 
> > > > Double-A
> > > 
> > > Why would negative always fall in and positive escapes?
> > > They would average out. No Hawking Radiation.
> > > No black holes...
> > > Hawking said that himself but went back to his fame
> > > instead of an honesty.
> > > 
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > 
> > 
> > Good thinking.
> > 
> > Double-A
> 
> 
> Once in a BH nothing ever comes out.Lots of stuff outside the event horizon is moving very fast.Some collide and go on there way back into deep space.This is the radiation that I see. Calling it radiation kind of gives it a twist that's deceiving .Bert

Black holes have jets leaving them...
Those aren't black holes.
They are supermassive Neutronium.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#714142

On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 9:06:15 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 6:26:35 PM UTC-8, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 2:32:59 PM UTC-8, Double-A wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 5:59:01 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 2:54:58 PM UTC-8, Double-A wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 7:35:20 AM UTC-8, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> > > > > > Has anyone found my anti-mass (negative mass values) yet?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It is not anti-matter.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I haven't decided whether it will attract regular mass or repel it (we have math for either).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If mass and anti-mass repel each other, it will give us easy anti-gravity.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If mass and anti-mass attract each other, bulk matter will be modeled as equal parts mass and anti-mass.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > What we see as the gravitational force is just the residual force of the equal parts mass and anti-mass in matter polarizing each other and attracting.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Personally, being an EE, my vote is for going with the EM convention and making mass and anti-mass attract while same sign mass repels.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This might go against the grain since we have "brainwashed" ourselves into a "mass is always positive" universe.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Mike
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > For Hawking radiation to work, anti-mass must be added to a black hole.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Double-A
> > > > 
> > > > Why would negative always fall in and positive escapes?
> > > > They would average out. No Hawking Radiation.
> > > > No black holes...
> > > > Hawking said that himself but went back to his fame
> > > > instead of an honesty.
> > > > 
> > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Good thinking.
> > > 
> > > Double-A
> > 
> > 
> > Once in a BH nothing ever comes out.Lots of stuff outside the event horizon is moving very fast.Some collide and go on there way back into deep space.This is the radiation that I see. Calling it radiation kind of gives it a twist that's deceiving .Bert
> 
> Black holes have jets leaving them...
> Those aren't black holes.
> They are supermassive Neutronium.
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch

If everything has its symmetric anti-world counterpart
why is light the exception?

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#715630

The photon is it's own anti-particle (antimater wise) so we could say symmetry is preserved like "0" on the numberline.

I've considered that photons could have mass and charge. There could be positive and negatively charged photons. Correspondingly, there could be positive and negative mass photons 

Alternatively, charge and mass could be different manifestations of a single underlying property.

Neutrinos (and other particles with mass but no charge) could be oppositely charged couplets.

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

#715753

On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 8:01:55 PM UTC-8, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> The photon is it's own anti-particle (antimater wise) so we could say symmetry is preserved like "0" on the numberline.

If it is exactly the same you are wrong Michael.
You can't have it both ways...

Mitchell Raemsch

> 
> I've considered that photons could have mass and charge. There could be positive and negatively charged photons. Correspondingly, there could be positive and negative mass photons 
> 
> Alternatively, charge and mass could be different manifestations of a single underlying property.
> 
> Neutrinos (and other particles with mass but no charge) could be oppositely charged couplets.

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

#718262

On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 8:01:55 PM UTC-8, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> The photon is it's own anti-particle (antimater wise) so we could say symmetry is preserved like "0" on the numberline.
> 
> I've considered that photons could have mass and charge. There could be positive and negatively charged photons. Correspondingly, there could be positive and negative mass photons 

No. Light waves are magnetic and electric fields Michael.

Mitchell Raemsch

> 
> Alternatively, charge and mass could be different manifestations of a single underlying property.
> 
> Neutrinos (and other particles with mass but no charge) could be oppositely charged couplets.

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

#718347

On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 6:11:59 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 8:01:55 PM UTC-8, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> > The photon is it's own anti-particle (antimater wise) so we could say symmetry is preserved like "0" on the numberline.
> > 
> > I've considered that photons could have mass and charge. There could be positive and negatively charged photons. Correspondingly, there could be positive and negative mass photons 
> 
> No. Light waves are magnetic and electric fields Michael.
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
> 
> > 
> > Alternatively, charge and mass could be different manifestations of a single underlying property.
> > 
> > Neutrinos (and other particles with mass but no charge) could be oppositely charged couplets.

Think QED Bert

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

#718380

On 12/14/2018 12:44 PM, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 6:11:59 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 8:01:55 PM UTC-8, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>>> The photon is it's own anti-particle (antimater wise) so we could say symmetry is preserved like "0" on the numberline.
>>>
>>> I've considered that photons could have mass and charge. There could be positive and negatively charged photons. Correspondingly, there could be positive and negative mass photons
>>
>> No. Light waves are magnetic and electric fields Michael.
>>
>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>
>>>
>>> Alternatively, charge and mass could be different manifestations of a single underlying property.
>>>
>>> Neutrinos (and other particles with mass but no charge) could be oppositely charged couplets.
> 
> Think QED Bert
> 
There is no such thing as anti-mass, Bert. And I am the only one who 
knows why. This is Nobel level imperial thinking. Oh Ya!

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

#718430

On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 11:00:58 AM UTC-8, benj wrote:
> On 12/14/2018 12:44 PM, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 6:11:59 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 8:01:55 PM UTC-8, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> >>> The photon is it's own anti-particle (antimater wise) so we could say symmetry is preserved like "0" on the numberline.
> >>>
> >>> I've considered that photons could have mass and charge. There could be positive and negatively charged photons. Correspondingly, there could be positive and negative mass photons
> >>
> >> No. Light waves are magnetic and electric fields Michael.
> >>
> >> Mitchell Raemsch
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Alternatively, charge and mass could be different manifestations of a single underlying property.
> >>>
> >>> Neutrinos (and other particles with mass but no charge) could be oppositely charged couplets.
> > 
> > Think QED Bert
> > 
> There is no such thing as anti-mass, Bert. And I am the only one who 
> knows why. This is Nobel level imperial thinking. Oh Ya!

Than go with it and tell us why. bert

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

#718455

On 12/14/2018 6:33 PM, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 11:00:58 AM UTC-8, benj wrote:
>> On 12/14/2018 12:44 PM, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 6:11:59 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 8:01:55 PM UTC-8, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>>>>> The photon is it's own anti-particle (antimater wise) so we could say symmetry is preserved like "0" on the numberline.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've considered that photons could have mass and charge. There could be positive and negatively charged photons. Correspondingly, there could be positive and negative mass photons
>>>>
>>>> No. Light waves are magnetic and electric fields Michael.
>>>>
>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Alternatively, charge and mass could be different manifestations of a single underlying property.
>>>>>
>>>>> Neutrinos (and other particles with mass but no charge) could be oppositely charged couplets.
>>>
>>> Think QED Bert
>>>
>> There is no such thing as anti-mass, Bert. And I am the only one who
>> knows why. This is Nobel level imperial thinking. Oh Ya!
> 
> Than go with it and tell us why. bert
> 
You have to go first, Bert. You spill the secret of your fusion reactor 
and I'll tell the secret of anti-mass!

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

#718448

"homo-reber G=emc^2" <herbertgay-lazier0@gmail.com> who
is <http://tinyurl.com/The-Chosen-Graveyard-Vandal> said: 
> "Think Quantum Excrement Deposits (QED) from & by Bert". Bert

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web