Mordred

Mass and energy are two properties that are in essence the same thing. Consider that mass is resistance to inertia change. Energy is the ability to perform work. Then further consider [latex] e=mc^2 [/latex]. One can readily see the two are readily interchangeable. If you combine an over dense region into an underdense region then the two regions will reach an equilibrium state the sum of the two parts. However blackholes also has extremely strong gravity so this process could take longer than the age of our universe. See black hole evaporation via Hawking radiation. In this scenario the universe Blackbox temperature of a near perfect vacuum will be less than the black body temperature of the BH. This is the only time Hawking radiation can occur. If opposite the BH will gain mass instead of losing it.

All forms of redshift are additive. It is plausible to counter cosmological redshift by gravitational or Dobbler shifts. They may have different causes however the effects upon frequency is the same. It's simply a matter of finding the right combination.

Of course one must consider that distances will vary with solar sails due to having to tack. Just like a sail boat if you are approaching the sun then the route will be longer There is advantages in a propellant craft in this regard. Though it is quite advantageous to have a combination to save on fuel payload where viable

I've never been more convinced this thread serves zero purpose than letting someone posting a personal complaint about his lack of any understanding of science

Really you know all of physics. Then perhaps you can provide me the CKM mixing angles for right hand neutrinos. If you can't answer that then you Don't know all of physics. Or is that too scientific for you as it involves a number ?

Well one fairly easy to predict probability function would be the spin of an electron. As there is only two spin states you would have a 50% chance of getting it right. Not sure how to answer the last considering macro processes can also involve a certain degree of randomness. However I would surmise that once you can define an event by strictly Newtonian mechanics with discrete values you have left the realm of dealing with quantum states. For example you would be 100 percent certain of the position without influence of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle

Let's take for example the annihilation creation operators under QFT. One can statistically predict the average number density of particles. Though one will never be exact. Nor will you ever be exact on when a measurable particle will pop into existence at a specific coordinate. We can however estimate within an error margin these processes. The better the predictions is reduction in systematic errors the less random the process becomes. A true random process will have zero predictability.

Considering we can develop a probability function for any known quantum process it's not fully random. The likely hood of occuring can be statistically accounted for. I for one cannot think of any formula or process quantum or otherwise that would count as true random.

Here is a far more practical design to give you some better ideas and some useful factors to consider. Including formulas. M2P2 solar magneto sphere spacecraft. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/14f7/2f939b203de184adc83d6473541ce629741a.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiDipKm7b_jAhV1MH0KHUV9BvoQFjAAegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw2X_EaixugX6lDoOPTRZYsP 35 kg of harvested propellant is minor. Some of the speeds attainable with this design is significant Far better details on this link https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/space/M2P2/m2p2.PDF&ved=2ahUKEwj118Sh77_jAhUKip4KHS5dCakQFjABegQIBxAC&usg=AOvVaw39j3Uq8yNC1ZieSw31VHUg Considering that (according to this paper ) it's viable to reach speeds up to 50 to 75 km/s it's a far better alternative than chemical thrusters. (Assuming the papers accuracy) Even if this design doesn't agree with the OP some of the data within the article will be handy example being the data with regards to the solar winds which maintain significant speeds up to 80 AU You still require significant acceleration to combat solar winds and gravity. Think of paddling against a strong river current in a canoe... As a simple analogy. Not to mention the sheer size of our solar system. You don't want to be slower than Voyager 1 but ideally faster.

You are aware the solar wind is of the order 10^-9 Newtons/ m^2 at 1au right ?

Finally numbers that makes more sense lol. I just had to look it up the average person can blow 2 PSI roughly 13,789 Newtons per square metre

There is when other forces are present. Ie gravity solar winds etc.You may as well have the astronaut blow through a tube it would probably generate more force.

Perhaps more And you wish to counter a combination of the solar wind and Earth's gravity with this ? Please note Strange,'d comment

Positive. Look up the definition of the unit Newton. "the SI unit of force. It is equal to the force that would give a mass of one kilogram an acceleration of one meter per second per second, and is equivalent to 100,000 dynes." I seem to recall an earlier post comparing wind blowing on a rock lol. Even in space you would require the correct amount of force to move your mass.

I'm still not sure on your opposite law context for example let's take an opposite law of applying a force. The vector direction the object would move would be opposite. Perhaps you should start with The ramifications of the opposite of the three laws of inertia .

Correct the existence of blackholes is another example. These were predicted decades before any observational evidence.

Answer this question. If the mathematics of physics is so worthless compared to observations. How is it that the majority of the particles discovered including the neutron was predicted mathematically long before their eventual discovery ? How did Einstein predict that light would curve around the sun with such precision prior to others observing this effect with the Hades stars? The history of physics development are full of examples where the mathematics made predictions prior to observations.

Well as you agree the video isn't very clear. The pop ups associated with each set of formulas and references you copied are extremely vaque in their relation. Piece of advise Start small and stick to the physics itself. Several of the pages have little to do with physics. Secondly it is not clear if this negative universe interacts with our universe. I will ask a pertinent question on the assumption that it does. What happens when matter and antimatter come into contact ? The only difference is opposite charge yet you get a rather dramatic effect. Now apply that to a negative and positive universe coming into contact... Would not the results be similar ? I'm guessing at the application involving e=mc^2 which is just the rest energy (invariant energy) thus formula doesn't include the momentum of a particle. My assumption is negative energy in the negative universe compared to our universe but that's a guess. PS everything associated with physics involves scalar, vectors, spinors. You may not be using those terms but they will invariably be involved.

Forgot to include wire Mount reactions above

Don't need to it's a simple application of the third law of inertia both wires are fixed mounted. One acts upon the other the other reacts to the previous. Secondly 0.02 N won't move a 250 kg craft

So one wire pushes against the other but both are fixed in their distance correct ? That won't work it won't matter how strong the field is with that scenario.

This negative universe hypothesis on the video I could easily counter. Thereisn't any substantial support in terms of the mathematical details. You would have years of work ahead of you to remotely get any professional to even consider the claims in the video. Let's start with the first claim of vector symmetry. Describing one vector direction as a positive universe while the opposite vector direction as the result of a negative universe is outlandish in the extreme. Secondly the formula you posted with regards to that claim is specifically the third law of inertia mathematical statement. "For any force there is an equal and opposite force. " That statement is symmetric not assymnetric. If you combine these two equal and opposite vectors the body will not move. So where did you get assymmetric with -1 ? Not that such a universe could interact with ours without significant and dire consequences. Specifically that law is symmetric under rotation translation symmetry That's just one of the earliest claims. One that will get this theory thrown into the trash. If you waste your time on some eighty page article on the assertions I saw you would definitely be wasting your time

Though change those from stars and specify galaxies. Edit just realized Strange mentioned that above

This might not be a full list but just off memory the numerous conservation laws Isospin Spin Charge Flavour Energy/momentum Lepton number Parity Barion number

Have you done any calculations yet ? Or even decided on a tonnage of your craft? You didn't agree with the low ball park of 10 tons. Without some value of weight it would be impossible to calculate the required thrust and the required amount of tesla needed. That remains to be seen. No one except yourself agree that your design would be capable. So start crunching some numbersm