Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 48 of 48

Thread: Solution of the Singularity Problem of Black Hole!

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    179
    The author appears to be struggling with the infinite problems caused by treating the particles as point particles(maybe). Maybe, this infinity problem can be solved through chapter 2-5(The minimal size of existence) of my paper.
    The equation above means that if masses are uniformly distributed within the radius , the size of negative binding energy becomes equal to that of mass energy. This can be the same that the rest mass, which used to be free for the mass defect effect caused by binding energy, has all disappeared. This means the total energy value representing "some existence" coming to 0 and "extinction of the existence". Therefore, is considered to act as “the minimal radius(size)” or “a bottom line” of existence with some positive energy.
    However, from the equal rates of fall of electrons, protons, and neutrons we cannot extract quantitative conclusions for the rates of fall of the self-energies locked up in the rest masses, because we have no way of calculating the magnitudes of these self-energies. A naive calculation of the, say, gravitational self-energy of the electron gives an infinite value; this, of course, proves only that the calculation is wrong and that our understanding of the quantum dynamics is faulty.
    Do you see a connection between "minimal size of existence" and the ratio of masses? Using a simplified ideal example: Let an electron and proton be positioned closer and closer to one another with the magnitude of their forces determined by Coulomb's force equation. The forces go to infinity while their accelerations have the inverse ratio of their masses. This is the question stated differently: If the ratio of their masses is maintained, the forces cannot become infinite?

    James A Putnam

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    92

    Negative mass density were the first result of the field equation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    No distortion of logic or physics makes dark energy into negative mass.
    1) "Negative mass and negative energy were the first result of the field equation" is wrong about the history of GR.
    The cosmological constant was added to allow the universe to be static. Too little mass and it expands. Too much mass and it contracts. Add the cosmological constant and its value can stop the expansion or contraction.
    No. What you said was from 1917 to 1930s.
    Also, it was only for Einstein, and he withdrew it. Since then, mainstream physics has adopted a model without cosmological constant as the mainstream model.

    From the observance of the HSS team and SCP team in 1998, they gained the mass density of the negative, using field equations which do not have the cosmological constant.

    The first findings were as follows:
    HSS(The High-z Supernova Search) team :

    SCP(Supernova Cosmology Project) team :

    This is the originally value they got. They were surprised at the results, and thus revived the cosmological constant.

    Anyway, negative mass (negative energy) is a valid solution for accelerating expansion of the universe.

    However, the two teams concluded that negative mass could not exist in our universe. So they revised the field equation by inserting the cosmological constant.

    We have to know that not the field equation has disposed the value, but our stereotype disposed that value. And we have to know that negative logic of negative energy(mass), which is the root of stereotype, is wrong.

    Moreover, we considered vacuum energy as the source of cosmological constant , but the current result of calculation shows difference of times between the two(observation value and calculation value), which is unprecedented even in the history of Physics.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    P.A.M. Dirac had a valid concept of negative energy levels that predicted the existence of positrons.
    In my opinion~
    No. P.A.M. Dirac did not understand correctly the negative mass and negative energy levels. Although positron exists, Dirac's electron sea model is not correct.

    His model requires the presence of an infinite number of electrons with negative energies for the presence of only one electron. Since electrons are in different locations, his model claims that there is an infinite number of electrons (have a negative energy) per each electron (each antiparticles). Likewise, in his model, the vacuum must be filled with infinite number of protons with negative energies in order to explain a proton-antiproton pair creation.
    In the Dirac's sea model, to describe pair creation, there must be an infinite number of antiparticles per type. His model does not provide an explanation for the electric field and motion of negative energy electrons, and negative infinity energy.

    Fermions can be prohibited from transit by Pauli's exclusion principle. But what about boson? What if there is at least one negative energy level? Boson can condense to one energy level. The relativistic energy equation, which is the starting point of Dirac's logic, also applies to boson.

    Infinite number of electrons with negative energies exists only to solve the false stereotype that he had about negative mass and negative energy levels.

    The acceleration of negative mass is opposite to the direction of force. Therefore, the negative mass has harmonic oscillation at the maximum point and it is also stable at the high energy state.

    Therefore, "The problem of transition to minus infinite energy level" does not occur.
    So, in order to prevent the transition to the negative infinite energy level, it is not necessary to introduce an infinite number of electrons having negative energy.

    His mistake is the result of not thinking about whether the principle of “low energy state is stable” is true for negative mass? Of course, the wrong electron sea model does not undermine his achievements. His electron sea model led to the idea that the vacuum was not an empty space, but something that could have created and vanished.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Do not confuse negative mass with antiparticle!

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Vacuum energy as in the creation of virtual particles is totally the conservation of energy! Virtual particle + antiparticle creation is energy being conserved.
    Considering the expansion of space, another claim of mainstream physics, vacuum energy violates energy conservation.
    Last edited by icarus2; 2017-Aug-18 at 09:47 AM.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by James Putnam View Post
    I have Wikipedia also! I know about black holes! I see purpose in introducing negative mass! I already asked you if current theory has finished theoretical physics? As a general finding of your complaints, this is the ATM forum. If it is the case that current theory has not finished theoretical physics then, I await icarus2's reasoning.
    Dear James Putnam,

    I’m sorry!
    I have insufficient knowledge and I am stressed about using English. Please understand my poor English.

    I do not know your hypothesis or model. I guess roughly from the conversation between the two peoples~
    According to Dirac's argument, antiparticle is a bit related to the subject of this post, since it originated from a negative energy solution.

    From the relativistic energy relation.



    We know that the above formula has two solutions.



    However, most physicists determined that total energy could not exist at a negative state and abandoned the solution of negative energy. Only the great physicist, Dirac was able to connect a solution of negative energy to antimatter. But, despite how Dirac reached his discovery on antimatter, antimatter still has positive energy. In other words, it is less likely that antimatter is the true owner of a negative energy solution.

    Through experiment, the antiparticle has been confirmed as a positive energy and mass. Therefore, it seems clear that the antiparticle has a positive inertial mass.

    The remaining possibility is that the inertial mass of the antiparticle is a positive value, but the gravitational mass has a negative value to generate antigravity.

    inertial mass > 0, gravitational mass <0,

    *Since the gravitational effect is very small, it is very difficult to directly measure the gravity of a single particle. At present, it is known that an experiment is underway to measure the sign of gravity of antiparticle in LHC.


    In this case(inertial mass > 0, gravitational mass <0), the matter forms a galaxy or galaxy cluster of matter, and antimatter forms a galaxy or galaxy cluster of antimatter. There is anti-gravity between matter (galaxy) and antimatter (galaxy).

    This model has the potential to explain the asymmetry of matter and antimatter, and can also produce the accelerating expansion effect of the universe. However, there are some disadvantages, and it is estimated through experiments and observations that it is highly likely to be a wrong model.

    I think that antiparticle has a positive gravitational mass and will act as attractive gravitational force.
    Last edited by icarus2; 2017-Aug-18 at 12:32 AM.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    179
    Icarus2,

    Thank you for giving an extensive reply. I should have made my question clearer with more information. I am glad that you gave a reply that included the work of others along with your view. Your subject is interesting.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,531
    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    No. What you said was from 1917 to 1930s.
    What I wrote was that this post has obvious errors about GR and cosmology.
    1)Negative mass and negative energy were the first result of the field equation.
    However, since those who received the first result had the wrong stereotype of negative mass and negative energy, so they rather modified the field equation to their taste. They resurrected the cosmological constant and modified the equation.
    A bit incoherent but seemingly abut the cosmological constant. A tiny aside: it is the Einstein field equations These are 10 equations written as one tensor equation. Tthe subscripts tell which equation is for a total of 16 equations and some are duplicates to give the total of 10.
    1. "Negative mass and negative energy were the first result of the field equation" is wrong.
      There is no negative mass in Einstein's paper. The first result of the field equation was Schwarzschild's solution ( no negative mass). The first serious consideration of negative mass and gravitation seems to appear in 1951.
    2. The cosmological constant is not negative mass.
    3. There has been no modification of the field equations "to their taste".
      The cosmological constant has always been there but generally set to zero because the universe was observed to be expanding, not static (the purpose of the introduction of the constant)

    More errors
    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    From the observance of the HSS team and SCP team in 1998, they gained the mass density of the negative, using field equations which do not have the cosmological constant.
    No "mass density of the negative" in the 1998 papers which were evidence for a non-zero cosmological constant. Just read the titles !
    Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant
    Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae

    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    Since then, mainstream physics has adopted a model without cosmological constant as the mainstream model.
    You know that has not been the case since 1998! The mainstream model includes a non-zero cosmological constant: Lambda-CDM model where lambda = cosmological constant.

    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    They were surprised at the results, and thus revived the cosmological constant.
    The authors were not surprised at the results because they were looking for constraints on the cosmological parameters including the cosmological constant.
    Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant
    Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae

    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    Moreover, we considered vacuum energy as the source of cosmological constant...
    The cosmological constant gives a "spacetime" vacuum energy (not the reverse) because it is the energy cost of having spacetime. There is a different quantum vacuum energy in QM. We can assume that QM vacuum energy is equivalent to GR vacuum energy. If we use QM to predict the GR vacuum energy then we get a 10120 discrepancy.

    A fantasy of what Dirac thought has nothing to do with the Dirac sea and its actual prediction of the positron. Some ignorance of the Dirac sea.
    The Dirac equation for electrons and its valid negative energy solutions is the basis for the Dirac sea but it is sea of negative energy particles not just electrons.
    It is not "the presence of only one electron" . If an electron in the Dirac sea is removed by giving it energy then what is left is a "hole" that has the properties of a positron as predicted and discovered. The Dirac sea predicted the existence of every positron that we have ever detected.
    The rest of the Dirac section is unfounded speculation, making up stuff and accusing Dirac (and millions? of scientists and students!) of being wrong.

    No negative mass has ever been found. We do not know whether antimatter has positive or negative mass. It is the best possibility for negative mass.

    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    Considering the expansion of space, another claim of mainstream physics, vacuum energy violates energy conservation.
    Irrelevant start and then a very basic error. Vacuum energy in QM where QM explicitly conserves energy. The easiest way see this is the concept of the vacuum energy being the result of virtual particle creation and destruction which is particle-antiparticle pairs.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2017-Aug-18 at 12:54 AM.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    [*]"Negative mass and negative energy were the first result of the field equation" is wrong.
    There is no negative mass in Einstein's paper. The first result of the field equation was Schwarzschild's solution ( no negative mass). The first serious consideration of negative mass and gravitation seems to appear in 1951.
    After you have distorted another person's claim, you refute it.

    "Negative mass and negative energy were the first result of the field equation."

    In front of this sentence there was a clear mention of the 1998 discovery.

    =====
    From the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe, people generally claim the existence of cosmological constants or vacuum energy. However, by borrowing their logic, the accelerating expansion of the universe can be interpreted as evidence for the existence of negative mass.
    =====

    In the second explanation, I mentioned the discovery in 1998.

    =====
    From the observance of the HSS team and SCP team in 1998, they gained the mass density of the negative, using field equations which do not have the cosmological constant.

    The first findings were
    as follows:
    HSS(The High-z Supernova Search) team :
    SCP(Supernova Cosmology Project) team :
    =====

    In the case of 1998 year, there is no need to mention the 1916 year case.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    No "mass density of the negative" in the 1998 papers which were evidence for a non-zero cosmological constant. Just read the titles !
    Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant
    Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    1."Negative mass and negative energy were the first result of the field equation" is wrong.
    2.The cosmological constant is not negative mass.
    3.There has been no modification of the field equations "to their taste".
    The cosmological constant has always been there but generally set to zero because the universe was observed to be expanding, not static (the purpose of the introduction of the constant)

    The authors were not surprised at the results because they were looking for constraints on the cosmological parameters including the cosmological constant.
    Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant
    Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae
    What you think scientists will always walk the right way is that you overestimate the scientists.

    After Einstein abandoned the cosmological constants, for a long time mainstream generally assumed a state of absence of cosmological constants. This is because the expansion of the universe was observed by Hubble, and theoretically, cosmological constant is not physical quantity that exist or is required in the derivation of the field equation. Of course, there were some scientists who still think about cosmological constants.

    The idea of mainstream is certainly contained in their defined “deceleration parameter q”.

    If they considered accelerating expansion, decelerating expansion, and constant velocity expansion equally(If they just looking for constraints on the cosmological parameters including the cosmological constant), they should have defined the word “parameter". However, mainstream scientists thought that universe would slow down and define the deceleration parameter q.

    The following is one of the Nobel Prize lecture screens of Adam Riess, the first author of the 1998 paper and the winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics.
    =====
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Adam riess - lecture-1.jpg 
Views:	12 
Size:	99.5 KB 
ID:	22540

    “Eureka moment” came when calculating the mass of Universe implied by the deceleration (q_0 >0) of our supernovae, assuming no cosmological constant ()

    Negative Mass?
    Actually the first indication of the discovery!


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Adam Riess - nobel lecture-3.jpg 
Views:	12 
Size:	56.0 KB 
ID:	22541

    Days later… What does this mean?
    There cannot be negative mass, but would Einstein’s Cosmological Constant explain this acceleration?

    =====

    Negative mass was the first result obtained from the field equation for the acceleration expansion of the universe.

    Did he try to explain the situation(accelerating expansion) with the negative mass obtained from the field equation?
    What if he was a P.A.M. Dirac, who trusted more of the results from the formula than he himself? Did he just throw the result of the equation?

    We have to know that not the field equation has reject the negative mass, but our stereotype reject that value. And we have to know that negative logic of negative energy(mass), which is the root of stereotype, is wrong.

    And many scientists use words such as the revival and reintroduction of cosmological constants in papers and writings.
    Even if you keep your point of view, at least, the fact is that the negative mass is the result of a field equation with no cosmological constant.

    A field equation without cosmological constant is not a worse equation than a field equation with cosmological constant, because of that theoretically, cosmological constant is not physical quantity that exist or is required in the derivation of the field equation. Until now, the cosmological constant is an assumption or hypothesis.


    The following equation is the acceleration equation.


    Since we are going to look at the logical structure of dark energy, let's consider only the dark energy term.


    In the case of acceleration expansion, the following relation holds.


    Mainstream :

    (I know that )



    People are condemned if their rejected ideas are directly visible. However, when we hide it in ambiguity, people send praise.
    Maybe we are doing this about dark energy?

    : !@!#!@$#@$#%#^#$

    : !@!#!@$#@$#%#^#$

    : Hide the negative energy density in the pressure term. Bravo! Excellent! Perfect!


    The cosmological constant or vacuum energy they introduce act as negative pressure with a positive energy density, and in the case of relativistic particles with the largest momentum compared to the mass energy, the pressure is only 1/3 of the energy density, but the cosmological constant or vacuum energy they introduce is three times more pressure than the pressure of relativistic particles. Is this physical object possible without violating energy conservation laws?

    Hide the negative energy density in the pressure term. or Put the negative energy density in the pressure term.
    The cockroach came out as food, and nobody could eat it. The chef put cockroaches in chocolate bars and most people do not feel any resistance it.

    So far, the mainstream has problems with both and CDM. So, the game is not over.
    In the field of cosmology, it is not yet time to have a firm faith.

    I disagree with your remaining claims.
    Last edited by icarus2; 2017-Aug-20 at 08:57 AM.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    14,508
    Very nice explanations, icarus2 !

    I rarely read posts in ATM. I'm glad I started reading this one!

    I have been exploring the idea you described near the bottom of your
    post #33 for over 30 years now, but I need to work at it much harder.
    I agree that it has problems. Your alternative to it is interesting and
    seems quite plausible. I would not presume to say that I understand
    it except that nearly every objection raised by Reality Check that
    you responded to, I correctly anticipated what your response would be.
    I had the same reaction to his objections that you had. So I must have
    *some* degree of understanding. I think it is because your exposition
    is so clear and concise, even if you are struggling with English.

    I had never seriously considered the possibility that any form of matter
    could have negative inertial mass. Is that actually part of what you are
    suggesting? Or that spacetime, rather than matter, could have negative
    inertial mass in the conditions at the center of a black hole? Thinking
    about it in a rather simplistic way, I wonder why you (or others you have
    quoted) say that acceleration of negative inertial mass is opposite to
    the applied force. I would say that the force itself has reversed, not the
    response to the force.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

    "I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
    were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

    "The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
    point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    179
    icarus2,

    Your high quality presentation is above my technical knowledge. I am doing my best to follow it. If this question is unrelated to your work, or is unclear, please don't spend your valuable time on it. Here is my question: Consider the behavior of positive mass when interacting with other positive mass; and, positive mass interacting with negative mass; and, negative mass interacting with other negative mass. Are their behaviors, i.e., how they respond to one another, similar to or the same as the common interactions of electrically charged particles when exerting forces on one another.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    92

    Solution of the Singularity Problem of Black Hole!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    I had never seriously considered the possibility that any form of matter
    could have negative inertial mass. Is that actually part of what you are
    suggesting? Or that spacetime, rather than matter, could have negative
    inertial mass in the conditions at the center of a black hole? Thinking
    about it in a rather simplistic way, I wonder why you (or others you have
    quoted) say that acceleration of negative inertial mass is opposite to
    the applied force. I would say that the force itself has reversed, not the
    response to the force.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis

    One of my main areas of interest is negative energy(mass). And, perhaps, the person who made the first discoveries below.

    Negative mass is stable at the high energy state. Therefore, "The problem of transition to minus infinite energy level" does not occur. Negative mass and negative energy can exist stably in our universe.

    This problem(The problem of transition to minus infinite energy level) is more than a hundred years old in physics and has been the most powerful theoretical background for the non-existence of negative energy and negative mass.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	fig-Negative mass is stable at a high energy state.jpg 
Views:	7 
Size:	14.4 KB 
ID:	22548





    The acceleration of negative mass is opposite to the direction of force. Therefore, the negative mass has harmonic oscillation at the maximum point and it is also stable at the high energy state.

    In the case of positive mass, it was stable at the minimum point at which energy is the low. However, in case of negative mass, stable equilibrium is a point of maximum value, not a point of minimum value.

    Therefore, "The problem of transition to minus infinite energy level" does not occur. This is a very important result because it means that negative mass and negative energy can exist stably in our universe.

    In my paper, through the equation of motion, I explain the kinetic properties of negative mass. Please view to the computer simulation video.


    Quote Originally Posted by James Putnam View Post
    Here is my question: Consider the behavior of positive mass when interacting with other positive mass; and, positive mass interacting with negative mass; and, negative mass interacting with other negative mass. Are their behaviors, i.e., how they respond to one another, similar to or the same as the common interactions of electrically charged particles when exerting forces on one another.

    1. To help understand the nature of negative mass, I made a computer simulation video.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZtS7cBMIc4


    2. Is the State of Low Energy Stable? Negative Energy Dark Energy and Dark Matter(Original)
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263468413

    Pair Creation Model of the Universe from Positive and Negative Energy(......)
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275056453


    This model can prove the energy composition(Matter : Dark matter : Dark energy) ratio of the universe and CCC (Cosmological Constant Coincident) Problem.

    Roughly calculated~
    Average value of WMAP and Planck : Matter : Dark matter : Dark Energy = 4.75% : 25.05% : 70.20%
    Average value of Pair creation Model : Matter : Dark matter : Dark Energy = 4.75% : 25.00% : 70.25%


    If you are bored, please read it once.
    Last edited by icarus2; 2017-Aug-20 at 09:25 PM.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    11,459
    icarus2, while the forum software allows embedded videos, our rules do not. Converted to a link.

    Jeff Root and James Putnam,

    This thread the thread is about the presentation, questioning, and defense of icarus2's claims. If you have questions, please ask them but no more side discussion, cheerleading, development, references to your own ATM ideas, or other side discussions. Those can be undertaken via PM.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by PetersCreek View Post
    icarus2, while the forum software allows embedded videos, our rules do not. Converted to a link.

    Jeff Root and James Putnam,
    I am very sorry. I'll be careful!

    Have a nice day!

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    179
    Icarus2,

    I understood very easily. Thank you.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,531
    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    After you have distorted another person's claim, you refute it. ...
    Your claim is not distorted and simply wrong: "Negative mass and negative energy were the first result of the field equation."
    No negative mass in the Einstein field equations. No negative mass in the "first result" from the EFE. The 1998 papers were using high z supernova to see what values the cosmological parameters has, including the cosmological constant.
    Dark energy is irrelevant to the thread but GR is not so:
    IF06a: Cite the occurrence of negative mass in Einstein's original papers.
    IF06b: Cite the occurrence of negative mass in the "first result" from the Einstein field equations.

    You keep asserting that the cosmological constant is negative mass so:
    IF07: Cite the scientific literature stating that the cosmological constant is any kind of mass (positive or negative), e.g. what are its units?
    Hint: it is not mass!

    IF02: How does gravitational self-energy provide a pressure between quarks to stop them getting closer together, icarus2?
    IF02b: As part of your answer, can you can tell us at what point in the collapse the positive mass of the quarks turns into negative mass? And how that happens?

    A couple of renumbered questions:
    IF04: What is your evidence that black holes can gave an energy of zero, e.g. how does the energy equivalent to their mass vanish?
    IF05: What is your evidence that black holes can gave an energy of less than zero, e.g. how does the energy equivalent to their mass vanish and more energy be removed?

    And
    IF08a: Why do your equations ignore kinetic energy?
    IF08b: Why do your equations ignore the physics that gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy in collapsing stars?
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2017-Aug-21 at 08:42 PM.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    92

    The effective gravitational mass density of the vacuum is negative.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Your claim is not distorted and simply wrong: "Negative mass and negative energy were the first result of the field equation."
    No negative mass in the Einstein field equations. No negative mass in the "first result" from the EFE. The 1998 papers were using high z supernova to see what values the cosmological parameters has, including the cosmological constant.
    Dark energy is irrelevant to the thread but GR is not so:
    No! After you still distort the argument of others, you refute it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    IF06a: Cite the occurrence of negative mass in Einstein's original papers.
    you still distort the argument of others,


    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    IF06b: Cite the occurrence of negative mass in the "first result" from the Einstein field equations.
    There is a Nobel Prize lecture by Adam Riess. Also, the paper also shows that when the cosmological constant is zero, the negative mass density value is obtained.
    If you want to check, ask Adam Riess ~


    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    You keep asserting that the cosmological constant is negative mass so:
    IF07: Cite the scientific literature stating that the cosmological constant is any kind of mass (positive or negative), e.g. what are its units?
    Hint: it is not mass!
    "e.g. what are its units?"
    "Hint: it is not mass!" :

    It shows how much you are arrogant and does not respect others.
    I did not say that the cosmological constant is negative mass. I have argued that "the acceleration expansion of the universe can be explained by the negative mass." And said that the negative mass is the result of a field equation with no cosmological constant.

    However, it is foolish to think that any physical quantity has only the meaning of the unit of that physical quantity.
    At E = mc^2, we have derived the mass energy equivalent law. Strictly speaking, mass does not have a unit of energy, but mass can be thought of as energy.
    When a physical quantity is expressed as a constant (with units) X physical quantity, we are able to assign a new meaning to this quantity and do so. This is because the phenomenon itself is derived from not a constant but physical quantity.


    Gravitation and Spacetime – by Hans C. Ohanian and Remo Ruffini

    =========

    We recognize that the term in Einstein’s equation corresponds to a uniform effective mass density



    Thus, if is positive, the effective gravitational mass density of the vacuum is negative.

    ~~~~~~

    Expressed in another way, the inertial mass density for the cosmological term is positive, but the gravitational mass density is negative.

    =========


    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    You misinterpreted the text!

    1)Edward Tryon, Stephen Hawking, Alan Guth, Alexander Vilenkin, Alexei V. Filippenko, Jay M. Pasachoff, and Lawrence Krauss etc. are argued that positive mass energy could be offset by the gravitational potential energy. They treat negative gravitational potential energy as real energy that can offset positive mass energy.

    2)Physicists and textbook say that the energy of a gravitational field is negative and gravitational fields has negative energy density.

    3)Above text book(Gravitation and Spacetime).
    - Gravitational potential energy is also a source of gravity!

    - Theoretical considerations suggest that the rest masses of electrons, protons, and neutrons include large amounts of gravitational self-energy,

    - In case of the Earth, we find that its gravitational self-energy is about 4.6 × 10−10 times its rest-mass energy.

    - Thus, these experiments indicate that gravitational energy gravitates in the normal way.

    4)In the generality of cases, the value of gravitational self-energy is small enough to be negligible, compared to mass energy . However the smaller R becomes, the higher the absolute value of . For this reason, we can see that is likely to offset the mass energy in a certain radius R_gs. And in the region of R< R_gs, we are faced with situations where the negative gravitational potential energy is greater than the positive mass energy.

    That point is R_gs, and it exists in the event horizon of the black hole.

    Please think carefully numbers 1)~4).


    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    IF08a: Why do your equations ignore kinetic energy?
    IF08b: Why do your equations ignore the physics that gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy in collapsing stars?
    This question is worth a little. My answer is "Pass!"

    I want to have a card that is not open.
    To me, research is not a high priority now.
    There are many many people in the world who have more knowledge than I do, if my ideas are all open, I will be far behind. So, I feel that I should have one or two cards that are not open. And, I have not found anyone who is good enough to sacrifice one card.
    Last edited by icarus2; 2017-Aug-21 at 03:10 PM.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    11,459
    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    It shows how much you are arrogant and does not respect others.
    Lose the attitude and the rudeness. If you resort to insults again, you risk suspension and having this thread closed.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,531
    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    [B]After you ....
    The assertion "Negative mass and negative energy were the first result of the field equation." still needs questions answered:
    IF06a: Cite the occurrence of negative mass in Einstein's original papers.
    (an answer is that there is none)
    IF06b: Cite the occurrence of negative mass in the "first result" from the Einstein field equations.
    (an answer is that there is none)
    And now you assert things from Adam Riess.
    IF09a: Cite the Nobel lecture by Adam Riess mentioning negative mass.
    IF09b: Cite the paper by Adam Riess where "the paper also shows that when the cosmological constant is zero, the negative mass density value is obtained".
    This is not his 1998 paper where negative mass is not mentioned and the cosmological constant is not found to be zero.

    The physics is that the acceleration of the universe has to be caused by an energy (thus dark energy) not a mass but:
    IF07: Cite the scientific literature stating that the acceleration of the universe is any kind of mass (positive or negative) or derive this yourself.
    Also show why we cannot see the negative mass (the dark part of dark energy) and why it has no other gravitational effects, e.g. pushing stars and galaxies apart.

    Nothing about black holes to answer:
    IF04: What is your evidence that black holes can gave an energy of zero, e.g. how does the energy equivalent to their mass vanish?
    IF05: What is your evidence that black holes can gave an energy of less than zero, e.g. how does the energy equivalent to their mass vanish and more energy be removed?

    "Pass" is not an answer to
    IF08a: Why do your equations ignore kinetic energy?
    IF08b: Why do your equations ignore the physics that gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy in collapsing stars?
    This is the well known physics that a moving object has kinetic energy that is part of their total energy, a falling object in a gravitational fields gains kinetic energy while losing the same amount of gravitational potential energy and the atoms in a star collapsing to form a black hole are obeying this physics.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    And now you assert things from Adam Riess.
    IF09a: Cite the Nobel lecture by Adam Riess mentioning negative mass.
    Nobel lecture by Adam Riess
    https://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplay...ex.php?id=1729

    Refer to 10m : 50s ~

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Adam Riess - nobel lecture-4.jpg 
Views:	13 
Size:	49.4 KB 
ID:	22555
    Negative Mass?
    Actually the first indication of the discovery!


    Days later… What does this mean?
    There cannot be negative mass, but would Einstein’s Cosmological Constant explain this acceleration?



    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    IF09b: Cite the paper by Adam Riess where "the paper also shows that when the cosmological constant is zero, the negative mass density value is obtained".
    This is not his 1998 paper where negative mass is not mentioned and the cosmological constant is not found to be zero.
    His 1998 paper :
    Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant
    https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9805201

    Refer to 14P
    ======
    If we instead demand that , we are forced to relax the requirement that to locate a global minimum in our χ^2 statistic. Doing so yields an unphysical value of Ω_M = −0.38 ± 0.22 and Ω_M = −0.52 ± 0.20 for the MLCS and template fitting approaches, respectively (see Table 8). This result emphasizes the need for a positive cosmological constant for a plausible fit.
    =======

    “This result emphasizes the need for a positive cosmological constant for a plausible fit.”

    Please note that this sentence states that he had a firm belief or assurance that "the negative mass does not exist!" This is not the result of observations or equations for the universe. It is a kind of common sense or stereotype. It may or may not be right


    Most people take for granted the existence of cosmological constant, but when Einstein and Hilbert induced the field equation, there was no cosmological constant. There was also a condition for keeping energy conservation. Cosmological constant is an artificial existence. So, we have to keep suspicion. Of course, negative mass must also be suspected ~


    Table 8 : Cosmological Results
    ======
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Adam Riess - nobel lecture-5-paper-table 8-3.jpg 
Views:	14 
Size:	106.5 KB 
ID:	22556
    ======


    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The physics is that the acceleration of the universe has to be caused by an energy (thus dark energy) not a mass but:
    IF07: Cite the scientific literature stating that the acceleration of the universe is any kind of mass (positive or negative) or derive this yourself.
    Equations and accelerating expansion of the universe do not distinguish between energy and mass!

    In the 1998year paper, :
    Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant
    https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9805201

    15P~16P
    =======
    We have derived estimates of q0 within a two-component model where . This definition assumes that the only sources of the current deceleration are mass density and the cosmological constant. A more complete definition for q0 would include all possible forms of energy density (see Caldwell, Dave, & Steinhardt 1998) but is beyond the scope of this paper. From our working definition of q_0, negative values for the current deceleration (i.e., accelerations) are generated only by a positive cosmological constant and not from unphysical, negative mass density.
    =======

    Removing his prejudice and looking at the facts, the universe is accelerating expansion, this suggesting that negative mass (density) exists or a positive cosmological constant exists.

    Think of “negative mass” and “negative energy” separately.
    Those who read this article will be more resistant to "negative mass" than "negative energy". It is such a prejudice.


    Although the units of two physical quantities( and negative mass density=in other word negative mass) are different, scientists treat them equally.

    Also, in the Nobdel Lecture, Adam Riess say that negative mass ~~~

    In the acceleration equation,
    <-- Unphysical

    <--Physical

    Logic structure is


    Unphysical = -2 = 1 + (-3) = Physical

    In my opinion,
    since the mainstream had a repulsion to the native mass and negative energy, someone provided the logic to avoid it.
    Because the negative energy density is put in the pressure term(negative pressure), the displeasure of the mainstream scientists has completely disappeared.
    The cosmological constant may be right, but not enough to have faith. I want to tell others that.


    Gravitation and Spacetime – by Hans C. Ohanian and Remo Ruffini
    =========
    We recognize that the term in Einstein’s equation corresponds to a uniform effective mass density



    Thus, if is positive, the effective gravitational mass density of the vacuum is negative.

    ~~~~~~

    Expressed in another way, the inertial mass density for the cosmological term is positive, but the gravitational mass density is negative.
    =========

    It is amazing~
    the inertial mass density for the cosmological term is positive, but the gravitational mass density is negative.

    It violates the principle of equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass, which is the basis of general relativity theory. It also violates the law of conservation of energy. Nonetheless, it became a standard.

    It is truly amazing!


    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Also show why we cannot see the negative mass (the dark part of dark energy) and why it has no other gravitational effects, e.g. pushing stars and galaxies apart.
    In my thought,

    In regards to the initial value of the energy of the universe, it is a more natural when an initial energy value of universe is 0. Therefore, negative energy is needed to offset the positive energy of matter.

    If negative mass(energy) and positive mass(energy) were came into being together at the beginning of universe, since positive masses have attractive effects with each other, so it forms stars and galaxy. However, negative masses have repulsive effects towards each other, so it cannot form any giant structure and may spread out almost uniformly across the whole area of universe.

    Owing to the effect of negative mass and positive mass, negative mass disappears near massive positive mass structures (such as the galaxy and galaxy clusters, etc.) after meeting positive mass. However, negative mass, which came into existence at the beginning of universe, can still exist in a vacuum state outside of general galaxy.

    The current structure of the galaxy is a structure that survived in the pair-annihilation of positive mass and negative mass and, since negative mass existed outside of this galaxy structure, therefore it has not been observed at the Earth.

    Negative mass has repulsive gravitational effect towards each other so it cannot make massive mass structures like stars or galaxies.

    We observed only the effect of matter in the Earth. However, it is presumed that the observation of the gravitational effect of dark matter and dark energy at the galactic scale or above, is due to the existence of negative energy and negative mass outside the galactic structure.

    Refer to simulation video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZtS7cBMIc4


    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    "Pass" is not an answer to
    IF08a: Why do your equations ignore kinetic energy?
    IF08b: Why do your equations ignore the physics that gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy in collapsing stars?
    This is the well known physics that a moving object has kinetic energy that is part of their total energy, a falling object in a gravitational fields gains kinetic energy while losing the same amount of gravitational potential energy and the atoms in a star collapsing to form a black hole are obeying this physics.
    There is at least two notion you are missing.
    I cannot open it because it is not written as a paper yet.
    Last edited by icarus2; 2017-Aug-22 at 12:26 PM.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    8,715

    30 days are over, thread closed
    if there is any reason to open this again, please report this message.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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