zbigniew.modrzejewski

You missed the rest of my post

So, where can we find negative mass? There is no consensus in the physics community if negative mass is even allowed to exist, referring to the so-called positive energy theorem that prohibits negative gravitational masses. Robert Forward was an American science fiction writer. His literary work was noted for its scientific credibility. Robert Forward first pointed out that a gravitational dipole, consisting of ordinary and negative matter, would be self-accelerating thus creating the ultimate propellant-less propulsion system. Up to now, the key ingredient, negative matter, has not been found to exist in natural form. However, since E=mc², negative matter may be created in a laboratory using negative energies. Previous studies showed that effective negative inertia exists for neutrons and also for electrons in short transient time intervals. Let's consider two possibilities to create stationary, charged negative effective masses that could be used to test Robert Forward’s self-propulsion effect. One is based on the assumption that Weber’s electrodynamics is correct predicting a negative mass regime for electrons inside a highly charged dielectric sphere. The other possibility is using asymmetric charge distributions that could be realized using electrets. With proper geometry and charge densities, negative mass regimes are derived which could lead to negative energies many orders of magnitude larger than those obtained from the Casimir effect. Based on these concepts, a negative matter space-drive could be realized in a laboratory environment. From an engineering perspective, maybe the most straight-forward concept is called negative matter propulsion, or diametric space drive. It consists of a pair of masses, one with an ordinary positive and the other one with a negative mass. Although Robert Forward assumes that the negative mass has both a negative gravitational and inertial mass, we can only concentrate on the effect of negative inertia. According to Newton’s second law, the acceleration of a mass is always in the direction of the force that acts on it: F=ma Negative inertia would therefore always accelerate in the opposite direction of the applied force. If both types of masses are now coupled with a spring that tries to attract both masses to each other, it is straight-forward to show that this gravitational (or inertial) dipole is self-accelerating. This self-acceleration propulsion system does not need propellant or energy. It should therefore be able to move at any arbitrary speed, even faster than the speed of light, since no energy is involved. Robert Forward showed in his analysis that negative matter propulsion does not violate the conservation of momentum or energy as negative mass also carries negative momentum and energy and hence the total energy of the self-accelerating dipole is zero -- self-acceleration is its ground state. This argument could be even proven for the case if the amount of negative and positive mass is not equal.

So, what was the physical evidence based on which Bohr put forward his un-scientific speculation regarding model of the atom?

Well, then by your standards it should not have been questioned, nor suspected, nor criticised, becuase it didn't disagree with all scientific evidence at the time!

" So, would you say that a speculation that is in contradiction with some of established science is not a scientific speculation? " If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. Could you give me an example? So, why Bohr put forward that un-scientific speculation that disagreed with experiment ???

So, to rephrase my question in a hope for straight answer : Could a speculation about negative mass be a scientific speculation? Or maybe true mainstream scientists do not ever speculate about the possibility of physical existence of negative mass?

Could you give me an example?

It is not my speculation, but yes, there seems to be a mathematical proof of negative mass being possible. It is not my model, but yes, repulsive gravitational interaction is being speculated as a strong possibility. First of all, we are in the "Speculation" topic, so I do not think that in regards to scientific speculation we need any mathematical proof. Does a scientific hypothesis need a mathematical proof. Is there a difference between: scientific speculation and scientific hypothesis ?

I have come across a speculation regarding negative mass. Could it be a scientific speculation? Or, true mainstream scientists do not speculate about the possibility of physical existence of negative mass, because negative mass could imply repulsive gravitational interactions?

So, would you say that a speculation that is in contradiction with some of established science is not a scientific speculation? Is there a difference between: scientific speculation and scientific hypothesis ?

According to GTR, any repulsive gravity, or "anti-gravity", is simply impossible. Would it be scientific enough to speculate that a new, more complete theory of gravity could explain how repulsive gravity interactions can be possible?

So, is it possible for a real valid scientific speculation to speculate that GTR may not be the "last word" on gravity, and that there could be a better theory of gravity? What is the "overlap" between quantum physics and GTR?

I would like to know what is the difference between: 1. scientific speculations, and 2. pseudo-speculations as it relates to this topic -- "Speculations", and the "Trash Can" topic. Thank you.

Until now, there have been only two working electromagnetic drive prototypes. The first one, EmDrive, was experimentally verified by NASA. Roger Shawyer opens up about the story behind invention of his EmDrive in an exclusive interview with IBTimes UK. The second one is Guido Fetta's Cannae Drive. And there will be many, many more to come. The new era of economic and affordable electromagnetic near-Light-speed space propulsion has barely began, just like the era of electric cars and electric airplanes. There is only one thing more powerful and explosive than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo My implementation of the electromagnetic space drive concept is much different from the two above. It is much more powerful, because it takes advantage, among other things, of some aspects of the EinsteinCartan theory in conjunction with the Einstein-deHaas effect, the Biefeld-Brown effect, and some empirical implications of Abraham-Minkowski equations : Link deleted by mod

A Debate Over the Physics of Time https://www.quantama...-and-cosmology/ " Many physicists argue that Einstein’s position is implied by the two pillars of modern physics: Einstein’s masterpiece, the general theory of relativity, and the Standard Model of particle physics. The laws that underlie these theories are time-symmetric — that is, the physics they describe is the same, regardless of whether the variable called “time” increases or decreases. Moreover, they say nothing at all about the point we call “now” — a special moment (or so it appears) for us, but seemingly undefined when we talk about the universe at large. The resulting timeless cosmos is sometimes called a “block universe” — a static block of space-time in which any flow of time, or passage through it, must presumably be a mental construct or other illusion. " What if time is only an illusion? What if it doesn't actually exist? Palle Yourgrau, a Brandeis professor of philosophy, explains that Einstein's general theory of relativity may allow for this possibility. It was first realized by the great logician Kurt Godel in a typically brief paper written for a Festschrift to honor his friend and Princeton neighbor Einstein. Godel is best known for his incompleteness theorem, one of the most important theorems in mathematical logic since Euclid. Palle Yourgrau writes that Godel's paper was almost universally ignored, and he claims that since the logician's death, philosophers have gone out of their way to try to denigrate his work in fields other than logic. In 1942, the logician Kurt Godel suffered a major episode of depression that required a stay at a mental hospital. Upon his release, Albert Einstein, his colleague at the Institute for Advanced Studies, took Godel under his wing and, to cheer him up, gave him "relativity lessons." The two became close friends; they walked to and from their offices at the Institute every day, exchanging ideas about science, philosophy, politics and the lost world of German science in which both men had grown up. By 1949, Godel had produced a remarkable proof: In any universe described by the Theory of Relativity, time cannot exist. Einstein endorsed this result – reluctantly, since it decisively overthrew the classical world-view to which he was committed. But he could find no way to refute it, and in the half-century since then, neither has anyone else. Even more remarkable than this stunning discovery by two of the greatest intellects of all time, however, was what happened afterward: nothing. Cosmologists have proceeded with their work as if time were the linear phenomenon familiar to Newton or Galileo (with some allowances for relativistic distortion); philosophers have refused to recognize Godel as an important philosopher of time. While arguing that these failures constitute major scandals of modern intellectual history, Palle Yourgrau also offers a mitigating explanation. Godel's cosmological findings, he says, are so advanced as to be beyond the ability of modern science to deal with them. A World without Time is a sweeping, ambitious book, and yet poignant and intimate – it tells the story of two magnificent minds put on the shelf by the scientific fashions of their day, and attempts to rescue from undeserved obscurity the brilliant work they did together.