If You Can Deconstruct Einstein, Please Explain This

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2015 7:06 AM GMT
    Jason:

    Last night when I was talking about negative mass, I caught myself saying 1 thing that can be confusing. So to clear that up and make more sense just wanted to mention here.
    I said that Negative Mass is what Einstein called "energy".
    E = mc^2 means...

    The stationary energy of Negative Mass distributed equally throughout a torus is = the energy of Positive Mass compacted into a sphere and if that sphere where moving at squared the speed of light.
    So when I mentioned negative energy density in relation to positive density.. I only gave half the example.

    If you push on a wall, you can't move through it because the wall is positive mass. Doesn't matter the charge of the positive mass. You can't move through it. Period.

    But negative mass has 2 states I think in this regard.
    I said last night that if you had the negative mass equivalent in a torus = to the positive mass of the wall... then you wouldn't be able to put your hand through that "field" as if there was a force repelling you.

    That's true, but negative mass with a positive charge I think.
    If it were negative mass with a negative charge, then you would accelerate through the air if you tried pushing on that same force.

    Negative Mass with positive charge... repel matter away. (Positive Gravity)
    Negative Mass with negative charge... accelerate matter THROUGH. (Negative Gravity)

    So as much as you CAN'T push through the positive mass wall is as fast as you'd accelerate through a negative mass negative charge torus of equal negative density.
    If it takes 10 pounds of force to move a 10 pound weight... then if you had the negative mass with negative charge equivalent of 10 positive pounds surrounding that positive mass.... it would be AS IF the 10 pounds weighed nothing. And it would shoot off at the speed of light with the same force it normally takes to push the 10 pounds.

    If it takes 10 pounds of force to move a 10 pound weight... and you had the negative mass with negative charge equivalent of 2 pounds surrounding that weight... when you moved it with 10 pounds of force, you'd get "overunity" of 2 pounds. Would be as if you're pushing the weight with 12 pounds.
    Or as if the weight weighed 8 pounds.

    So E=mc^2 should be redefined. Don't use the term "energy" ANYMORE.
    Too general, intangible and anomalous.
    What science calls "energy" is not just "work". Too general and anomalous.
    What science calls "energy" is negative mass.
    It's it's equivalent to positive mass As If that positive mass where moving squared the speed of light.

    Negative Mass with negative charge is "electrons".
    Negative Mass with positive charge is "positrons."
    Both electron and positron form a torus/ ring.
    But "they" aren't plural. Regardless of how many "electrons" are compacted to equal a specific negative energy density.. it will always be evenly distributed in 1 ring/ torus.

    But the energy can be tapped at all points of the torus simultaneously to reap full potential of the total torus. Each point of the torus is representative of the whole amount of "energy" present.
    Opposite of positive mass.

    If you have 2 people draining a positive mass sphere, then they each get half power. 3 people each get 1/3 power, etc.
    But with negative mass, it's a constant regardless how many people drain the same torus. Because all the potential energy is distributed throughout the torus and remains at a constat. (as desribed by Searl's Law of Squares Matrix showing the numbers add up all directions. "Energy is conserved". Meaning that negative mass can't be broken in half. Like how pixels to a hologram have the total picture within each pixel. Cutting a hologram in half doesn't take away half the image. Only takes away half the pixels making up the entire image. Now you just have a less dense ring of equal size.
  • Antarktis

    Posts: 213

    Dec 27, 2015 1:23 PM GMT
    Try explaining it on a cartesian coordinate system. Consider that mass requires space and volume. Consider (0,0) as the wall you mention. + (X,Y,Z) as opposed to the theoretical -(X,Y,Z).
    Just a thought; since like negative mass is theoretical so is anything existing in the negative planes of the Cartesian fields. However through math one can still create curved structures and lines in the negative coordinates.
    What we know is only one of 8 sections.
    Just a thought.

  • Buddha

    Posts: 1765

    Dec 27, 2015 3:14 PM GMT
    ...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2015 6:23 PM GMT
    God, RJ is such a bizarre website.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2015 6:31 PM GMT
    CLTMike46 saidGod, RJ is such a bizarre website.



    LOL
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2015 7:16 PM GMT
    Diverse is the word icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2015 7:23 PM GMT
    Too many moving parts for this dimension. Energy, negative mass (positive charge), negative mass (negative charge), positive mass (can it just be bi-charged and not have to be put into a pos/neg category?) - choose your term(s) and have a go.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2015 7:24 PM GMT
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2015 10:07 PM GMT
    Jason

    So E=mc^2 should be redefined. Don't use the term "energy" ANYMORE.
    Too general, intangible and anomalous.
    What science calls "energy" is not just "work". Too general and anomalous.
    What science calls "energy" is negative mass.

    Stephen

    Jason, what confuses me is Scientific American, in February 2008 tells us there are Quantum Particles of Matter and Quantum Particles of Force.

    How can you say Mass is not matter and negative mass is energy; and, energy is not force?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2015 10:17 PM GMT
    StephenOABC saidJason

    So E=mc^2 should be redefined. Don't use the term "energy" ANYMORE.
    Too general, intangible and anomalous.
    What science calls "energy" is not just "work". Too general and anomalous.
    What science calls "energy" is negative mass.

    Stephen

    Jason, what confuses me is Scientific American, in February 2008 tells us there are Quantum Particles of Matter and Quantum Particles of Force.

    How can you say Mass is not matter and negative mass is energy; and, energy is not force?


    Won't we get our Quarks and Bosons mixed up?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2015 10:19 PM GMT
    Antarktis saidTry explaining it on a cartesian coordinate system. Consider that mass requires space and volume. Consider (0,0) as the wall you mention. + (X,Y,Z) as opposed to the theoretical -(X,Y,Z).
    Just a thought; since like negative mass is theoretical so is anything existing in the negative planes of the Cartesian fields. However through math one can still create curved structures and lines in the negative coordinates.
    What we know is only one of 8 sections.
    Just a thought.



    Yes, Antarktis. BUT, if negative mass becomes positive energy...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2015 3:18 PM GMT
    Jason:

    Mass is matter.
    There is positive mass and negative mass.
    positive mass is "stuff". tangible.
    negative mass is vacuous, charge, intangible.

    Bosons is a classification.
    The opposite of Fermions.
    There are 2 classes.
    Bosons and Fermions.

    There is no such thing as a 'quark", electron, etc as a solid ball particle.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2015 3:19 PM GMT
    StephenOABC saidJason:

    Mass is matter.
    There is positive mass and negative mass.
    positive mass is "stuff". tangible.
    negative mass is vacuous, charge, intangible.

    Bosons is a classification.
    The opposite of Fermions.
    There are 2 classes.
    Bosons and Fermions.

    There is no such thing as a 'quark", electron, etc as a solid ball particle.


    A fermion can be an elementary particle, such as the electron, or it can be a composite particle, such as the proton. According to the spin-statistics theorem in any reasonable relativistic quantum field theory, particles with integer spin are bosons, while particles with half-integer spin are fermions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2015 5:02 PM GMT
    Waves and particles - no matter how you dice them (and how much do we really know about them, as each discovery seems to create more questions and possibilities than are answered), just be happy they exist. I don't know if anyone can imagine dimension(s) without them.

    The beauty of particle scientific research is it keeps proving there is another universe inside the current 'smallest universe' we can observe. It stands to reason our dimension is infinite in either direction - larger than galaxies and the distances between, and smaller than the current research of bosuns, quarks, etc.

    But the truly unanswered questions are...... who is Jason? And why hasn't he replied?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2015 5:04 AM GMT
    CrabNebula saidWaves and particles - no matter how you dice them (and how much do we really know about them, as each discovery seems to create more questions and possibilities than are answered), just be happy they exist. I don't know if anyone can imagine dimension(s) without them.

    The beauty of particle scientific research is it keeps proving there is another universe inside the current 'smallest universe' we can observe. It stands to reason our dimension is infinite in either direction - larger than galaxies and the distances between, and smaller than the current research of bosuns, quarks, etc.

    But the truly unanswered questions are...... who is Jason? And why hasn't he replied?


    Jason did reply. He is not a RealJock member: he is a Facebook friend of mine. I posted his reply: it starts with Jason: .

    Send me a message, if you value Facebook.
  • AtlantaMale

    Posts: 1

    Dec 30, 2015 11:04 AM GMT
    All of this structure to support Einsteins theories. At each turn we find theoretical scientists inventing new particles, waves, strings,energy types to support his theories. Hawkings has been instrumental in this complicated mire of theories. Is it possible that everyone is wrong?