Notices
Results 1 to 12 of 12
Like Tree3Likes
  • 2 Post By mathman
  • 1 Post By AlexG

Thread: On negative energy(unobservable gravitational potential energy)

  1. #1 On negative energy(unobservable gravitational potential energy) 
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    45
    If matter can be converted to energy, then if we allow Dark matter to be our "unobservable gravitatinal potential negative energy"
    Then the inverse on "our" observable side to E=mC^2, would be C^2=E/m. Sense Dark matter is our negative energy(that really isn't negative), Looking at this equation from the point of veiw where Dark matter is the "observable energy" , then (DM/normal matter)^2=C . . .or . . .
    . . .(268/049)^2=299145299145

    if matter can be converted to energy, then why can't Dark matter be your "unobservable negative" gravitational potential energy? the up and the down anti-quark would hold your gravitational potential energy. With a combined mass of 7.2, times that by Dark energy, and it equals 4.9 . . . . Divide 2.683 by normal matter= sqrt. of C .
    And 100/.268 =373 also 7.2^3 = 373 and Dark Energy times the sqrt. of C= 373
    Last edited by David Hawkins; 09-10-2014 at 01:54 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    112
    Gobbledegook.
    pzkpfw and Physicist like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    236
    E=mC^2, would be C^2=E/m - Well, am I incorrect or does that part at least seem correct? The rest I could not follow, though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by David Hawkins
    If matter converts to energy, ...
    Which it doesn't. See Does nature convert mass into energy? by Ralph Baierlein, Am. J. Phys. 75 , 320 (2007)
    First I provide some history of how the equation E = mc2 arose, establish what “mass” means in the context of this relation, and present some aspects of how the relation can be understood. Then I address the question, Does E = mc2 mean that one can “convert mass into energy” and vice versa?
    I think he addresses the matter into mass thing too. In any case he describes what E = mc2 means very clearly. It's only at http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.bro.../baierlein.pdf

    Quote Originally Posted by David Hawkins
    ...then if we allow Dark matter to be our "unobservable gravitatinal potential negative energy"..
    Why? Dark matter is attractive while gravitational potential negative energy is repulsive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by David Hawkins View Post
    If matter converts to energy, then if we allow Dark matter to be our "unobservable gravitatinal potential negative energy"
    Then the inverse on "our" observable side to E=mC^2, would be C^2=E/m. Sense Dark matter is our negative energy(that really isn't negative), Looking at this equation from the point of veiw where Dark matter is the "observable energy" , then (DM/normal matter)^2=C . . .or . . .
    . . .(268/049)^2=299145299145 if you were to consider that DM were the "Sqrt. of the UP and the DOWN anti-quark, which would be 2.683
    David, you are persisting in numerological nonsense. For example, the phrase "square-root of the UP anti-quark" has no meaning in physics, mathematics, or logic. Even if it did have a meaning, its connection to your first two sentences seems...elusive.

    Several of us have mentioned -- more than once, individually -- that one must, at minimum, obey dimensional consistency. You continue to ignore that basic requirement to the detriment of your arguments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by mayflow View Post
    E=mC^2, would be C^2=E/m - Well, am I incorrect or does that part at least seem correct? The rest I could not follow, though.
    Don't try to follow it. It has no meaning. As mathman points out, it seems to only be numerology. It'd be best to ignore it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    236
    No, no. It was not numerology. I actually know about numerology. It was come up with by Pythagorus many many years ago.

    Pythagorean theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by mayflow View Post
    No, no. It was not numerology. I actually know about numerology. It was come up with by Pythagorus many many years ago.

    Pythagorean theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Again, I strongly recommend doing a google search as a check on what you think you know. If you do so, you will often find that there's much more knowledge out there than you acknowledge. In this case, your concept of what constitutes numerology is far too restricted. To learn, see, e.g.: Numerology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    161
    Confusing numerology with trigonometry.
    pzkpfw likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    236
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #11  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by mayflow View Post
    So? What is the value or relevance of linking to a crackpot site in the context of the discussion taking place?

    Did you bother to read the wikipedia article I linked to? If history is a guide, the answer is no. But you really should. Learning is good for you. You shouldn't fear it so. Then you'll understand why what David Hawkins is doing is indeed numerology (and of an obsessive kind), and why your "correction" with its reference to Pythagoras (note the spelling) was nothing of the sort.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #12  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    236
    Well, no matter, the "crackpot" site is mine. Sometimes a girl likes to have a site of her own making. It helps one to think on her own, don't ya know? Who is David Hawkins? I may like him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •