--- Jesse Mazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> John M wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >Jesse and George:
SNIP
> JeMa:
> Well, you're free to define "negative mass" however
> you like, of course--but 
> this is not how physicists would use the term. When
> you plug negative values 
> of mass or energy into various physics equations it
> leads to weird 
> consequences that we don't see in everyday life,
> such as the fact that 
> negative-mass objects would be gravitationally
> repelled by positive-mass 
> objects, rather than attracted to them. Likewise, in
> general relativity only 
> negative mass/energy would be able to hold open a
> wormhole, there'd be no 
> way to arrange positive mass/energy to do that.
> 
> Jesse
> 
JohnMi:
 There is a 'physicist-invented' system (a miraculous
edifice) of the model "physics", the explanatory ever
modified quantitative treatment of the ever increasing
knowledge (epistemically enriching cognitive inventory
continually further-discovered) going through systems,
all with equations including still holding and duly
modified expressions (eg. entropy). (It is incredibly
successful and productive to originate our
technology.)
The entire setup is based on "positive" mass (matter?)
and energy. It is a balanced entity. Put a new patern
into it and the whole order goes berzerk. 

The difficulty is the modelwise-reduced values and the
"APPLICATION" of the results of math onto them. The
"beyond the model boundaries" effects are disregarded.

We have a balanced complexity and if we try to alter
one segment the thing falls apart. We must not include
e.g. negative mass into a complexity built on positive
mass only. It has no provisions for a different
vision.
(Heliocentric constant orbiting could not fit into the
planatary geocentric retrogradational image, it was
deemed "false". Maybe paradoxical. Astronomy had to be
rewritten for the new concepts, it did not fit into
the (then) Ptolemaic order. Heliocentric was wrong.) 

We are skewed by the past 26 centuries into seeing
only the positive side of matter and energy. All the
math equations are built on that. Of course they
reject another view. 
Gravitation - or whatever we DON'T know about it - is
no proof for rejecting a new idea which is outside of
the existing ignorance about it. Equations or not. The
fantasy of a wormhole ditto. Phlogiston neither(haha).
Equational 'matching' within the same system and its
values is not too impressive. The values are captive
to the present (and past??) instrumentation and their
calculative evaluation. If something does not match:
it is wrong a priori. Alter the experimental
conditions! 
Observations are rejected because some theory
prohibits them. (Of course the 'observations' are also
interpreted).

I am not advocating the negative mass and energy idea,
just fight the 'methods for their rejection' before we
look into a possibility to use them right. Nobody took
a second explanation for the redshift seriously,
because Hubble's ingenious idea was so impressive. And
today, after millions of so slanted experiments, we
all expand. Irrevocably. And selectively only.

Thanks for a serious reply. I did not intend to go
that deeply into it.

John M






Reply via email to