How boy was it ever.

Spell check turning an a for o substitution into a completely different word.

Cito di Pense wrote:

hackenslash wrote:I should point out by now that the postulate that c cannot be breached has never been subjected to a potentially falsifying test. It's entirely mathematical in nature.

Does the RS charter specify our obligation to chase down woo everywhere it pops up, and kill it dead, like roach hotel?
...

Well, if it doesn't, they should be grateful for the freedom it gives them to spread the stuff. I do my best to kill it, but get no help from you. Why is that?

lucek wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

lucek wrote:Yup because if there is science fiction about it, somebody on the internet knows it's a scam, and can prove it wrong by saying that it violates non-applicable theories then it's pseudoscience. Oh and observations and math that back it up have no place in the discussion what so ever.

Dave it's been a year. This is beyond tiresome.

You still haven't twigged yet, then. YOU are the one that is beyond tiresome, ffs! The rest may have realised that the whole thing is a pile of woo, violating all the laws of physics at once.

Because I want to have a discussion about theatrical physics and not just sticking my fingers in my ears and repeating the something over and over.

But Dave I'll give you one last chance. You said it violates all the laws of physics. Name 1. And when you do tell me how that squares with the expansion of space time.

Thermodynamics. I supplied a reference a little while back on why negative mass particles violate local conservation of energy, and the laws of thermodynamics, by causing unlimited heating of a gas consisting of a mixture of posistive and negative mass particles. As said, this could be used to construct a perpetual motion machine.
Do you believe in perpetual motion machines?

Ironically, I have the only cosmology that can reconcile (among many other things) accelerated universe expansion with conservation of total energy (of the multiverse).

... BTW, this is certainly getting "theatrical", I'll give you that!

DavidMcC wrote:

lucek wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

lucek wrote:Yup because if there is science fiction about it, somebody on the internet knows it's a scam, and can prove it wrong by saying that it violates non-applicable theories then it's pseudoscience. Oh and observations and math that back it up have no place in the discussion what so ever.

Dave it's been a year. This is beyond tiresome.

You still haven't twigged yet, then. YOU are the one that is beyond tiresome, ffs! The rest may have realised that the whole thing is a pile of woo, violating all the laws of physics at once.

Because I want to have a discussion about theatrical physics and not just sticking my fingers in my ears and repeating the something over and over.

But Dave I'll give you one last chance. You said it violates all the laws of physics. Name 1. And when you do tell me how that squares with the expansion of space time.

Thermodynamics. I supplied a reference a little while back on why negative mass particles violate local conservation of energy, and the laws of thermodynamics, by causing unlimited heating of a gas consisting of a mixture of posistive and negative mass particles. As said, this could be used to construct a perpetual motion machine.
Do you believe in perpetual motion machines?

Ironically, I have the only cosmology that can reconcile (among many other things) accelerated universe expansion with conservation of total energy (of the multiverse).

Energy is conserved as it is in our universe of 0 energy. Net energy remains constant arguing that absolute energy content is different doesn't change that.

If you are talking about the idea that negative mass would repel and at the same time attract mass then you are only talking 1 idea of how a theoretical particle may act. One that this work isn't dependent on.

Want to try again?

lucek wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

lucek wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
You still haven't twigged yet, then. YOU are the one that is beyond tiresome, ffs! The rest may have realised that the whole thing is a pile of woo, violating all the laws of physics at once.

Because I want to have a discussion about theatrical physics and not just sticking my fingers in my ears and repeating the something over and over.

But Dave I'll give you one last chance. You said it violates all the laws of physics. Name 1. And when you do tell me how that squares with the expansion of space time.

Thermodynamics. I supplied a reference a little while back on why negative mass particles violate local conservation of energy, and the laws of thermodynamics, by causing unlimited heating of a gas consisting of a mixture of posistive and negative mass particles. As said, this could be used to construct a perpetual motion machine.
Do you believe in perpetual motion machines?

Ironically, I have the only cosmology that can reconcile (among many other things) accelerated universe expansion with conservation of total energy (of the multiverse).

Energy is conserved as it is in our universe of 0 energy. Net energy remains constant arguing that absolute energy content is different doesn't change that.

You obviously haven't read my articles in the "Loop quantum gravity" thread, where I suggest that accelerated expansion of the universe could be due to a close encounter between this an another one, based on Lee Smolin's fecund, black hole-based universes.

If you are talking about the idea that negative mass would repel and at the same time attract mass then you are only talking 1 idea of how a theoretical particle may act. One that this work isn't dependent on.

...

D'uh! I was talking about the gravitational force being repulsive between two particles of opposite sign mass, but attractive between two of the same sign. This would be merely an extension of the law of gravity, as promulgated by Isaac Newton, based on observations of positive mass bodies (planets) only.
Of course, the above is hypothetical, as there are no negative mass particles. I was merely stating what we could expect if there really WERE such things.

EDIT: BTW, gravitational repulsion as hypothesised above, does not apply to the supposed gravitational repulsion between galaxies at cosmologically large distances, that some (not me) have inferred occurs without the need to invoke negative mass.
EDIT: The inference of gravitational repulsion would apply at all distances, when masses are of opposite sign. This is quite different fron repulsion at very large distances, when masses are of the same sign.

You've still not shown how the equation .5Mv2+.5(-)Mv2=0 is wrong.

So moving on,

You said it violates all the laws of physics. Name 1. And when you do tell me how that squares with the expansion of space time.

lucek wrote:You've still not shown how the equation .5Mv2+.5(-)Mv2=0 is wrong.

Well, that is not even wrong. It's also a truism, equivalent to 0 = 0. Furthermore, it suggests to me that you think that (non-relativistic) kinetic energy of motion is the ONLY form of energy, AND that there is an equal amount of negative mass matter and positive mass matter. These are both wild assertions, especially as they assume negative mass particles exist and are equally abundant to positive. But if that makes you feel happy, you are free to believe it, I supose.

So moving on,

You said it violates all the laws of physics. Name 1. And when you do tell me how that squares with the expansion of space time.

I have already answered that.

DavidMcC wrote:

lucek wrote:You've still not shown how the equation .5Mv2+.5(-)Mv2=0 is wrong.

Well, that is not even wrong. It's also a truism, equivalent to 0 = 0. Furthermore, it suggests to me that you think that (non-relativistic) kinetic energy of motion is the ONLY form of energy, AND that there is an equal amount of negative mass matter and positive mass matter. These are both wild assertions, especially as they assume negative mass particles exist and are equally abundant to positive. But if that makes you feel happy, you are free to believe it, I supose.

No it's a simplified proof of how negative matter doesn't violate thermodynamics. It is a direct reply to your PPM strawman argument. Energy can be conserved even if we have 2 particles that repel each other.

Dave this looks very trolish. How could you not understand something you brought up just a few posts ago so poorly that you call it crap now?

So moving on,

You said it violates all the laws of physics. Name 1. And when you do tell me how that squares with the expansion of space time.

I have already answered that.

And I showed you were talking tosh, so do you have an actual example or do you want to retract.

lucek wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

lucek wrote:You've still not shown how the equation .5Mv2+.5(-)Mv2=0 is wrong.

Well, that is not even wrong. It's also a truism, equivalent to 0 = 0. Furthermore, it suggests to me that you think that (non-relativistic) kinetic energy of motion is the ONLY form of energy, AND that there is an equal amount of negative mass matter and positive mass matter. These are both wild assertions, especially as they assume negative mass particles exist and are equally abundant to positive. But if that makes you feel happy, you are free to believe it, I supose.

No it's a simplified proof of how negative matter doesn't violate thermodynamics. It is a direct reply to your PPM strawman argument. Energy can be conserved even if we have 2 particles that repel each other.

Dave this looks very trolish. How could you not understand something you brought up just a few posts ago so poorly that you call it crap now?

So moving on,

You said it violates all the laws of physics. Name 1. And when you do tell me how that squares with the expansion of space time.

I have already answered that.

And I showed you were talking tosh, so do you have an actual example or do you want to retract.

I admire your bravado, I must say. I was not "talking tosh", just exposing yours.

I'm not pulling this out of my ass Dave. The equation I gave you was originally penned by Hermann Bondi. He covered it quite some time ago and showed that in fact no negative mass doesn't by it's nature violate conservation of energy.

That said I'm out. Troll, stupid, or what ever you are I'm not dealing with this. Either way you've have not and probably you will not take a mature look at anything to do with this topic.

lucek wrote:I'm not pulling this out of my ass Dave. The equation I gave you was originally penned by Hermann Bondi. He covered it quite some time ago and showed that in fact no negative mass doesn't by it's nature violate conservation of energy.

That said I'm out. Troll, stupid, or what ever you are I'm not dealing with this. Either way you've have not and probably you will not take a mature look at anything to do with this topic.

Denouncing mainstream physics as "stupid" or "trollery" does not impress me, lucek. Clearly, you are looking for an exit strategy.
Well, good riddance.

Objections (to my "no FTL" claim) posted in another thread include the fact that particles may travel at FTL speed near a black hole. However, IMO, that is only because the speed of light is reduced as it "struggles up" a severe gravitational gradient. Hence the red-shifting of light orbitting just outside the event horizon. Thus, it is comparable to the cause of Cerenkov radiation in a dielectric medium (which also effectively reduces the local speed of light).

My objection to your 'no FTL' claim is that you can't support it with anything other than an unproven and entirely mathematical postulate and lies about the positions of others.

... Furthermore, the "black hole" argument is not relevant to "Sonny" White's claim to be have designed a space-ship that can travel at FTL speed to Alpha Centauri, since there are no BH's between here and there. All he needed, apparently, was some negative mass matter and a couple of black holes engineered to form an asymmetric shell.

hackenslash wrote:My objection to your 'no FTL' claim is that you can't support it with anything other than an unproven and entirely mathematical postulate and lies about the positions of others.

And how about support for your FTL claims? That's b*ll*cks for a start. My claim that White's claim is nonsense is backed by the physical impossibiloity of negative mass particles, whatever nonsense Hermann Bondi may have dreamed up. The guy was good at solid state physics, but out of his element with this.

Deleted - double post.

DavidMcC wrote:

hackenslash wrote:My objection to your 'no FTL' claim is that you can't support it with anything other than an unproven and entirely mathematical postulate and lies about the positions of others.

And how about support for your FTL claims? That's b*ll*cks for a start. My claim that White's claim is nonsense is backed by the physical impossibiloity of negative mass particles, whatever nonsense Hermann Bondi may have dreamed up. The guy was good at solid state physics, but out of his element with this.

Question on GR, who do you call? Hermann Bondi or Dave McCulloch? Nah, can't choose.......

twistor59 wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

hackenslash wrote:My objection to your 'no FTL' claim is that you can't support it with anything other than an unproven and entirely mathematical postulate and lies about the positions of others.

And how about support for your FTL claims? That's b*ll*cks for a start. My claim that White's claim is nonsense is backed by the physical impossibiloity of negative mass particles, whatever nonsense Hermann Bondi may have dreamed up. The guy was good at solid state physics, but out of his element with this.

Question on GR, who do you call? Hermann Bondi or Dave McCulloch? Nah, can't choose.......

A. Bondi is not supported by the science community as a whole on this issue.
B. He is out of his element when not discussing solid state physics.
You seem to think that anyone with a name for anything is right about anything else, and that's a non-sequitur.

... Let me put it another way: how many experimental particle physicists are looking for negative mass particles, and how many theoretical particle physicists have extended the standard model to incorporate them? I think the answer to both questions is: NONE!