The theory of gravitational negative mass field

[yahya515]

The positive mass is how much matter there is and the negative mass is how much energy disappeared from vacuum to form mass , it is possible to have negative energy , in relativity energy comes out of mass by the square of speed of light increament here I would like to present the equation in opposite direction i.e huge energy produces little mass by the reciprocal of the square of the speed of light factor , by the idea that mass was obtained by making huge work, then the same energy is released by the same equation.

by the arguement above when mass was made by work done , something left which is the negative mass qauntity, it is the same as when collecting heat energy from a place cold occurs there , because at first energy came from nothing to be as a certain quantity in the whole universe , as thermodynamics first law states that we have a specific a mount of energy in the universe nothing disappears nothing will be created.

the negative mass equals the positive one in magnitute without the negative sign, the gravity field is the amount of negative mass differs in density from the centre which it is at its highest density to zero at infinty , the density of negative mass is mass divided by the spherical area:

ρ= mass/(4π*r*r) , k.g/m*m

where( r) is the distance between the centre of the spherical mass to the surface to measure density at. when many particles gather they multiply the density by the same amount of the masses together.

the vacuum is zero mass , positive mass is attracted to area of negative mass to fulfill it, for instance masses on earth move from less area density to high area density , from above earth surface to its surface to its centre this is the gravitational force which is directely proportional to the density of negative mass:

F=k*ρ*m newtons

where k is a constant.

to obtain k:

g= 9.8 m/s*s , g= k*ρ

ρ= 6*10E24/ (4π*6378000*6378000)= 1.17E10. k.g/m*m

k=g/ρ = 8.34E-10

the reason why the density decreases far away from masses is because the stages of creating the mass from energy differs, i.e the energy to make mass is used in accelarated manner , if we think in it as kinetic energy, the velocity began at zero in infinity and increased to its maximum amount at the place where the dimentions of the mass are. the maximum speed is the speed of light ©:

kinetic energy = 0.5 * mass * v*v

here v= c

however according to relativity :

energy= mass*c*c

the kinetic energy to produce mass is half the energy released from the mass because part of the kinetic energy is used first beginning from speed = zero until it reaches its maximum v= c.

when heat affects atoms , some energy comes out as light , the energy comes out as it was stored to form matter , i.e it comes out as light with velocity ©, heat will be stored instead of the released light energy.

 

[andrewcellini]

F=k*ρ*m newtons

where k is a constant.

to obtain k:

g= 9.8 m/s*s , g= k*ρ

ρ= 6*10E24/ (4π*6378000*6378000)= 1.17E10. k.g/m*m

k=g/ρ = 8.34E-10

 

 

how can k be constant when g is not always 9.8 m/s^2? that is only a near earth approximation of the gravitational field.

[yahya515]

how can k be constant when g is not always 9.8 m/s^2? that is only a near earth approximation of the gravitational field.

k=g/ρ,

simply when g decreases the ρ decreases as well by the same amount:

ρ= mass/(4π*r*r) r is the distance from the centre of earth.

I think Newton's equation of gravitation is:

g=Gm/r^2

by simple comparison k is always constant.

[andrewcellini]

k=g/ρ,

simply when g decreases the ρ decreases as well by the same amount:

ρ= mass/(4π*r*r) r is the distance from the centre of earth.

I think Newton's equation of gravitation is:

g=Gm/r^2

by simple comparison k is always constant.

great, though i'm not sure that mass per surface area relates to the acceleration due to gravity in that way. now that that's cleared up, what does this have to do with negative mass? what do you mean by negative mass? how does energy get taken from the vacuum and converted into, say, a hydrogen atom? this isn't addressed in your math.

 

this looks like a pointless and convoluted way to set up F=mg, and if you know m and g, why even care about this new constant k? you can solve the problem just as well presumably as your ρ terms cancel leaving mg.

Edited February 14, 2015 by andrewcellini

[yahya515]

great, though i'm not sure that mass per surface area relates to the acceleration due to gravity in that way. now that that's cleared up, what does this have to do with negative mass? what do you mean by negative mass? how does energy get taken from the vacuum and converted into, say, a hydrogen atom? this isn't addressed in your math.

 

this looks like a pointless and convoluted way to set up F=mg, and if you know m and g, why even care about this new constant k? you can solve the problem just as well presumably as your ρ terms cancel leaving mg.

new concepts will never change these equations:

F=ma

F=GMm/r^2

it will answer rather the question:

why force and also acceleration are proportional to the quantity :

m/r^2

because it represents negative mass density per each unit of area,

and force is understood now to increase by the increment in negative mass density,

and negative mass is the opposite of positive mass, positive mass is how much matter there is, negative mass is how much matter is missing from a place, vacuum is neutral which has zero mass , gravitation field is negative mass, that why positive mass is attracted to it ,to fulfill the place which has negative mass with positive one.

[andrewcellini]

new concepts will never change these equations:

F=ma

F=GMm/r^2

it will answer rather the question:

why force and also acceleration are proportional to the quantity :

m/r^2

because it represents negative mass density per each unit of area,

and force is understood now to increase by the increment in negative mass density,

and negative mass is the opposite of positive mass, positive mass is how much matter there is, negative mass is how much matter is missing from a place, vacuum is neutral which has zero mass , gravitation field is negative mass, that why positive mass is attracted to it ,to fulfill the place which has negative mass with positive one.

you're going to need different equations then, because that's not what these mean, and your application of them by keeping the absolute values of the masses is indistinguishable from describing the gravitational force of two (conventionally) massive points r meters from each other.

Edited February 14, 2015 by andrewcellini

[Mordred]

k=g/ρ,

simply when g decreases the ρ decreases as well by the same amount:

ρ= mass/(4π*r*r) r is the distance from the centre of earth.

I think Newton's equation of gravitation is:

g=Gm/r^2

by simple comparison k is always constant.

Energy density does not decrease the same amount as g.

 

The rate of decrease is via the stress energy tensor. The pressure term is via the particles equation of state

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_%28cosmology%29

 

in GR energy density corresponds to pressure via the stress energy tensor. Which also corresponds to the energy density. It is not the simple inverse relation you show.

 

 

[latex]T^{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)U^{\mu}U^{\nu}+p \eta^{\mu\nu}[/latex]

 

http://www.th.physik.uni-bonn.de/nilles/exercises/ss04/gr05.pdf

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor

 

for the metric tensor portion above.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_tensor_(general_relativity)

Edited February 14, 2015 by Mordred

[yahya515]

Energy density does not decrease the same amount as g.

 

The rate of decrease is via the stress energy tensor. The pressure term is via the particles equation of state

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_%28cosmology%29

 

in GR energy density corresponds to pressure via the stress energy tensor. Which also corresponds to the energy density. It is not the simple inverse relation you show.

 

 

[latex]T^{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)U^{\mu}U^{\nu}+p \eta^{\mu\nu}[/latex]

 

http://www.th.physik.uni-bonn.de/nilles/exercises/ss04/gr05.pdf

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor

 

for the metric tensor portion above.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_tensor_(general_relativity)

it is not energy density, it is mass density , energy was already transformed into mass, there is not any energy left , the thing which is left is negative mass as a gravitational field.

[Mordred]

Doesn't matter, your relations in the formulas you provide will not give you the correct values.

 

Study the stress energy tensor and the Einstein field equations. They do include mass density or energy density.

In other words the FLRW metric and GR, Einstein field equations. Already relates pressure, energy/mass density to gravity relations.

 

This is already researched and covered.

[yahya515]

........that's not what these mean

what does this mean:

F=GMm/r^2, F is the measure of force , what is the relation between mass , r^2, and force?

This is already researched and covered.

of course.

[Mordred]

Yes but your discussing mass and pressure/energy/ mass relations.

 

That formula is good in Euclidean flat space. It's no longer accurate in curved space time example Minkowskii. You need GR for that

Edited February 14, 2015 by Mordred

[andrewcellini]

what does this mean:

F=GMm/r^2, F is the measure of force , what is the relation between mass , r^2, and force?

the magnitude of the force on a massive body m from another massive body M is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportion to the square of the distance between them.

 

by calling this new property negative mass, but by using the equations in such a way as all the mass is positive, you are essentially giving the static approximation of gravity between two massive bodies (which is what i said above).

 

correct my understanding of what you are saying if this is not what you are saying.

Edited February 14, 2015 by andrewcellini

[yahya515]

the magnitude of the force on a massive body m from another massive body M is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportion to the square of the distance between them.

 

 

this is just what the equation states, it is not pretty clear as in for example electric fields, a force appears only if there are charges, my explanation is negative mass is a kind of charge.

 

 

by calling this new property negative mass, but by using the equations in such a way as all the mass is positive, you are essentially giving the static approximation of gravity between two massive bodies (which is what i said above).

 

 

negative mass is not a mathematical description to appear in equation it is a physical one .

[Mordred]

There is no such thing as negative mass. Its usage simply means a reduction in mass. Same with negative energy. Any energy density is positive, so is any mass.

 

This includes antimatter.

[yahya515]

 

 

correct my understanding of what you are saying if this is not what you are saying.

I think we do not use the minus sign when calculating electric force between a negative charge and a positive one.

There is no such thing as negative mass. Its usage simply means a reduction in mass. Same with negative energy. Any energy density is positive, so is any mass.

 

This includes antimatter.

I do not mean reduction , I do not refer to mathematical concept, when I owe you ten dollars, and you have nothing to pay them back to me then you have minus 10 dollars, I mean you have ten dollars and I have Sudanese pounds equivalent to your ten dollars.

[Mordred]

Your not getting it.

 

If I have 19 pounds and remove 5 pounds I can say I have negated some mass.

 

However you cannot have -19 pounds by itself outside a mathematic relationship.

 

ALL energy is a positive value.

 

All matter is also a positive value.

 

Changing the signs on charge DOES NOT change this.

 

Antimatter has the opposite charge to its matter component. It has positive energy and positive matter. When they annihilate the charges are mediated by gauge bosons to maintain

Conservation of charge.

A key detail to remember force is a vector.

 

Opposite charge attracts, like charges repel. However the amount of force is the same, just opposite directions. This does not mean one is a negative force.

[andrewcellini]

I think we do not use the minus sign when calculating electric force between a negative charge and a positive one.

yes but depending on the charge's sign, the force is attractive or repulsive. this is not the case with gravity given observation and in the meaning of newtons equation; two massive objects (that is mass is positive) attract each other.

Edited February 14, 2015 by andrewcellini

[Sensei]

 

the reason why the density decreases far away from masses is because the stages of creating the mass from energy differs, i.e the energy to make mass is used in accelarated manner , if we think in it as kinetic energy, the velocity began at zero in infinity and increased to its maximum amount at the place where the dimentions of the mass are. the maximum speed is the speed of light ©:

kinetic energy = 0.5 * mass * v*v

here v= c

however according to relativity :

energy= mass*c*c

the kinetic energy to produce mass is half the energy released from the mass because part of the kinetic energy is used first beginning from speed = zero until it reaches its maximum v= c.

when heat affects atoms , some energy comes out as light , the energy comes out as it was stored to form matter , i.e it comes out as light with velocity ©, heat will be stored instead of the released light energy.

 

In special relativity kinetic energy is:

 

[math]E.K. = E-E_0=\gamma m_0 c^2-m_0 c^2[/math]

 

[math]\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/math]

 

 

[math]E.K=\frac{1}{2} m v^2[/math]

 

is classic physics kinetic energy equation..

It is approximately matching SR one at low velocity.

[yahya515]

 

In special relativity kinetic energy is:

 

[math]E.K. = E-E_0=\gamma m_0 c^2-m_0 c^2[/math]

 

[math]\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/math]

 

 

[math]E.K=\frac{1}{2} m v^2[/math]

 

is classic physics kinetic energy equation..

It is approximately matching SR one at low velocity.

the core part was the negative mass ,the last paragraph was only a hint to another theory of mine which I do not want to talk about in this thread.

[ajb]

Same with negative energy. Any energy density is positive, so is any mass.

Such things are considered in general relativity, but usually classically they are forbidden by 'energy conditions' (being slack here as to exactly what I mean). Interestingly in semi-classical gravity insisting on positive energy densities is not so easy. One often has violation of these energy conditions.

 

Anyway, this is not what yahya515 is talking about. He should consider general relativity with the various energy conditions and then semi-classical gravity if he really wants to talk about negative energy densities and similar.

[yahya515]

when I say:

negative mass is how much energy disappeared from vacuum to form mass

I mean energy was not reduced , instead it disappeared , this gives two questions :

what was first , energy or matter?

​will the concept of energy disappearance be valid?

 

regardless of religious concepts I think energy first exists, and then it transformed into matter, a philosophical argument my be:

every mass is energy and not every energy is mass, i.e energy exists in different ways, and it can be changed into different forms this characteristic makes it capable to change into mass , however mass exists in one form an atom.

and in order to change into mass it should disappear , another philosophical argument may be:

if mass when it changed into matter did not disappear, then when we release the energy contained in the matter we will have double amount of energy, and energy can not be created , so it should disappear. perhaps this concept is valid in energy transformations , it disappears in a form and appears in another form, the same for a particle when it moves between two positions A and B , it disappears in position A and appears in position B. so if mass disappears in position A and did not appears in position B it will transform into energy, when energy disappears from a particular form and did not appear in another form it will change into matter.

[Mordred]

Energy is a property of particles, it doesn't exist on its own. So trying to seperate energy from mass isn't going to work.

 

I suspect the problem is lacking the proper descriptives. So we will merely mention the above for now.

 

e=mc^2 shows that energy and mass are equivalent. All forms of energy can have mass and generate gravity

[ajb]

regardless of religious concepts I think energy first exists...

Energy is a property of a physical configuration and the idea of pure energy or energy existing on its own is nonsensical. What about pure linear or angular momentum or pure electric charge?

[Mordred]

Another suggestion is adding the caveat energy in the form of a gauge boson virtual particle cloud.

 

For example, the instanton is commonly used for vaccum states.

 

Inflation makes use of the inflaton as the mediator between two vacuum states.

 

For electromagnetic the quage boson (force/energy carrier particle)

Is the photon

 

For the strong force it is gluons

 

For the weak force it is the W and Z bosons.

gravity is complicated the mediator should be the graviton, however we haven't found the graviton. So gravity is commonly represented by the properties of space time (GR)

 

The boson that first gives mass to quarks, leptons neutrinos is the Higgs boson.

[yahya515]

suppose you have a cube of ice and a cup of water , they are of the same mass, someone told you that ice is just water frozen, this same water if we put it in the cube shape and freeze it we will obtain ice, and if we melt the ice putting it in the cup we will obtain water, you ask what you first made then transformed ? ice or water? or both? you say : water because I collected molecules of water closer to be steam then to be liquid then to be solid. anyway my question was about pre-creation thing , I know that energy is a property of matter , I think talking about pre-creation things is difficult , and what I mean is was it energy then mass or mass then energy or both , assuming that to obtain mass we should already have energy to transform it , and in my opinion the opposite is not , i.e if mass is energy it should be made of some kind of energy.

Edited February 15, 2015 by yahya515