[alancalverd]

Poppycock. Consider three billiard balls. There is a mutual gravitational attraction between all three and they are all made of the same material right through. What determines the polarity of the red, black and white balls? 

Or a neutron star. Zillions of identical uncharged particles all held together by....er....

[guest39538]

Poppycock. Consider three billiard balls. There is a mutual gravitational attraction between all three and they are all made of the same material right through. What determines the polarity of the red, black and white balls? 

Or a neutron star. Zillions of identical uncharged particles all held together by....er....

All 3 snooker balls are at a perfect equilibrium, they absorb and release energy at the same rate, the ground absorbs the energy output of the balls, the balls will reach a room temperature, if the temperature is increased and increased the balls will eventually fail to release more energy than gain and eventually have quantum state failure.

The polarity of the balls is neutral, an equilibrium, negative cancelling positive out ,by an equal balance.

And when talking negative and positive polarity I do not mean like a battery or a magnetic, but something different , something new maybe.

I get, gravity is the negative mass of matter,an unobservable negative flow attracted to the positive mass of matter.

My reason is because + repels + so + can not attract + but can attract -.

Yes I am saying that mass is the set and - and + are the subsets.


added- imagine the core is subset (a)+


imagine the ground subset (b)-&(a)
imagine the ocean subset (a)&(b)
imagine ice subset (b)
imagine air subset (a)&(b)


the ice will float because the ice is attracted to the core and the ground but the water pushes back and the air pulls it.

[alancalverd]

There is a gravitational attraction between all three billiard balls. Nothing to do with temperature .

Why do you try to make everything more complicated than it is?

[guest39538]

Why do you try to make everything more complicated than it is?

Not more complicated, more advanced in the knowledge. To just say mass does not say what mass is. What is mass? mass is the negative and positive of matter?

p.s i think it is more simpler personally.

[alancalverd]

Mass is what gives a body its gravitational field. Charge is what gives a body its electrostatic field.

As far as we know there is only one type of mass, but two types of charge. It also turns out that inertial mass and gravitational mass are identical to a very high degree of confidence.

The force between masses m1 and m2 is proportional to the product m1m2 and is always positive. The force between charges is proportional to -q1q2 and is therefore positive (attractive) or negative (repulsive) depending on the sign of each q.

Now what could be simpler than that?

[guest39538]

Mass is what gives a body its gravitational field. Charge is what gives a body its electrostatic field.

As far as we know there is only one type of mass, but two types of charge. It also turns out that inertial mass and gravitational mass are identical to a very high degree of confidence.

The force between masses m1 and m2 is proportional to the product m1m2 and is always positive. The force between charges is proportional to -q1q2 and is therefore positive (attractive) or negative (repulsive) depending on the sign of each q.

Now what could be simpler than that?

edit - The forces between masses m1 and m2 is proportional to the product m1m2 and is always positive and negative. The forces between masses  is proportional to -q1q2 and is therefore positive (attractive) or negative (repulsive) depending on the entropy proportion of q1q2 of a mass.

Consider a ''lifter'' Alan, we add  electricity creating a positive electrical field, this field repels off the earth's core positive field that denotes lift.

We already know that a positive can not attract a positive but can only attract a negative, mass is the negative of an object .  positive is the energy of the object.

[alancalverd]

Please provide an example of negative gravitation. Your Nobel Prize awaits.

[guest39538]

Please provide an example of negative gravitation. Your Nobel Prize awaits.

What you think is buoyancy is not buoyancy.   My example I will give is air, when air has less energy it ''sinks'', when air has more energy it rises. More energy meaning more of a positive and repels itself of the earth's positive.
I would also add the lifter, creating a field equal and opposing to the earth's positive field.
I would also add  that matter only contains positive and negative and this can be the only mechanism of matter that has any repulsive or attractive qualities.
I can add ice, but I am still a bit uncertain of how to word the explanation.
I would also add metal expansion, polarised atoms repelling each other causing expansion,

Is this what you mean?  I could present it in full detail with all the ins and outs, would take me  a while to write.

It explains almost everything including the expanding universe ,

Andromeda has more negative mass than the milkyway, consider the effect of force when both galaxies are in passive space.


And the main thing, all matter has negative mass that is attracted to positive mass.


The best example is H²O

3 stages

liquid - equilibrium of mass

gaseous-greater positive mass

ice-greater negative mass


at this stage you are thinking ice floats and if was a negative mass would be pulled to the ocean floor towards the positive mass core, but when you consider air is more of a positive mass than water and the negative mass ice is attracted to the positive mass air, it makes sense why it floats.


Added thought, this may sound a bit wacked out, but if the sun was in a specific position closer to us , we could walk on water.

[alancalverd]

Utter poppycock throughout.

Please learn some basic physics, such as the meaning of "density" and Archimedes Principle before I waste any more time with you.

[guest39538]

Utter poppycock throughout.

Please learn some basic physics, such as the meaning of "density" and Archimedes Principle before I waste any more time with you.

It is not poppy cock, consider matter, made of atoms, the only mechanism of matter that has any capabilities of attraction or repulsion is negative and positive properties. There is no other mechanism of matter leading to only one conclusion.
I have explained it well, it may seem far fetched and futuristic sci-fi, but this is what advancing on something means, to strive forward to a future of more knowledge.  New does not mean poppy cock.

To just say mass is not saying what mass is, negative mass and positive mass explains very well what mass is.  It completes gravity.
Science can not detect a gravity wave because it is negative. 

We know negative is attracted to positive and we also know positive repel positives, so why deny basic physics that we know already exists?

P.s I understand density, xyz^-xyz=0 if you remember.  I do not have to be a scientist to understand compressed molecules and decompressed molecules.

I.e an apple is not as dense of an equal shaped piece of metal.


If I can explain why present gravity theory is wrong and show an example of why it is wrong would you take me serious then?

[alancalverd]

Never mind theory. Show me an example of two masses that do not attract one another. And don't confuse yourself with buoyancy, because that necessarily involves a third mass for which even you can't assign a polarity!

[guest39538]

Never mind theory. Show me an example of two masses that do not attract one another. And don't confuse yourself with buoyancy, because that necessarily involves a third mass for which even you can't assign a polarity!

All mass is attracted to mass because all mass contains both positive mass and negative mass, there is no mass that is not attracted to other mass. Polarity of mass is variate, thermodynamics allows this, Atoms have a stable equilibrium of negative and positive mass, add energy and the atom excites producing a greater positive mass repelling other atoms greater positive mass, this is why metal expands and contracts, when the energy gained is lost the atoms return to an equilibrium state of mass.

Ok below is a diagram courtesy  of google and a bitmap edit.

1.The ball rotates around the pole on a string , it does not matter what speed the ball rotates at , the contraction mechanism will always contract the length of the string to a point where the ball is touching the pole.  In earth's example almost touching the pole.

2.
The ball rotates around the pole on a fixed pole , it does not matter what speed the ball rotates at , the contraction mechanism will never contract the length of the fixed pole to a point where the ball is touching the pole.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[alancalverd]

More drivel Please provide an instance of gravitational repulsion.

[guest39538]

More drivel Please provide an instance of gravitational repulsion.

When energy is added to air, the air becomes under an instant of gravitational repulsion, the earth is under constant gravitational repulsion off the Sun, the moon is under gravitational repulsion from the earth.

Metal expands because of gravitational repulsion, a lifter lifts because of repulsion.


The earth does the exact same thing in orbit of the sun as air does in our atmosphere and circulates by thermodynamic absorption and thermodynamic extraction having effect of the equilibrium off setting the positive and negative mass.

It is really simple to show , we already know what happens to a gas or air if we add energy, the gas expands, molecules pushing molecules away from each other.

By adding energy to air , the air gains positive mass that in effect cancels out the negative mass flow that is attracted to the positive mass of the core and ground.

Fire rises, fire is positive mass, burning embers rise.
A Thermocline will rise or sink dependent on input of energy.

[alancalverd]

By adding energy to air , the air gains positive mass that in effect cancels out the negative mass flow that is attracted to the positive mass of the core and ground.

My hot air balloon weighed exactly the same hot or cold, but only flew when it was hot.

Fire rises, fire is positive mass, burning embers rise.

Lavoisier showed that this was wrong.

[guest39538]

Lavoisier showed that this was wrong.

I thought Lavoisier proved nothing is ever lost? 

Have you got a link to show that fire does not burn ''upwards'' and rises before it is dispersed?

A candles flame always points up even if I angle the candle. Fire does not burn horizontal , the flames are always vertical, a bit like a vertical spirit level.  [ Invalid Attachment ]
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[jeffreyH]

Please provide an example of negative gravitation. Your Nobel Prize awaits.

When it is trapped behind an event horizon and pointing inward toward a singularity?

[guest39538]

When it is trapped behind an event horizon and pointing inward toward a singularity?

asteroids in an asteroid belt or satellites?

[McQueen]

The equation E = mc²  stands for the total energy of an object at rest where m stands for mass and c is the speed of light., which is approx  3 x 10⁸ m/s
Newton's formula for the kinetic energy of an object is e = 1/2(v² m) . Einstein's equation for kinetic energy of an object was E = (mc² ) / (sqrt(1 - (v² / c² ))). According to this equation as the object reaches close to the speed of light its mass increases asymptotically. Therefore the equation E = mc² represents the total energy of an object at rest. To calculate the energy of an object in motion it is possible to use : E = (mc²)² + (pc)²
Since light has the unique property of being the limiting speed of the Universe, it is possible to denote the speed of light as 1 and to calculate all other speeds relative to it. Therefore,  a man walking along at 4kmh would have a speed of  3.7 x10^-9 c  and the speed of the earth through space would be 2.7 x 10^-5 c and so on.  When used in the equation E = mc² it is possible to see  that E = m . That is energy is equal to mass. Since momentum p = mv, then it follows that the mass is equal to the speed of light squared: or approx 9 x 10¹⁶ m/s. Thus a  Joule has a mass of approx 9 x 10^-16 Kg and a mass of 1Kg has an energy of  9 x 10¹⁶ J.

The Box :  E=mc^² is exactly the same as F=ma^² when (c) and (a) are accelerations of the same magnitude?

Since c = 1 ; is it possible to write F = mc²  if  a  = c ?