Why does that happen? And where does that sock go? I dunno. Maybe this theory deserves another look:
No Mas!.....................
A new study that doesn’t mention global warming? However did they get it funded?
That’s heavy, man.
” . . . an inner layer of positive mass surrounded by an exterior layer composed of negative mass.”
The most interesting thing to me is the whole concept of ‘negative mass’ - in particular, what kind of properties it would have. If you had fission or fusion of particles of negative mass, would that release ‘negative energy’? - and what would ‘negative energy’ be like?
Why does that happen? And where does that sock go? I dunno. Maybe this theory deserves another look:
I’M curious about how gravity accumulates on objects causing weight increases over time.
Not being a scientist I never paid attention to this sort of thing 20 or 30 years ago but in recent years I have noticed the phenomena.
My window A/C units for example, I just put them back in the windows recently and could detect that they were heavier than last year and I’m certain that they are much heavier than 5 years ago going by my memory.
I sometimes wonder if this mass discrepancy is the result of treating something as a constant that’s actually a variable at the scale of the universe.
The universe doesn’t fit my model so I will just make some crap up. That should fix the universe.
positive mass surrounded by “negative mass” negating itself?
This seems like such a reach. Is negative mass another way of saying anti-matter?
I think these guys just throw stuff hoping it hits a wall. They don’t even care if it sticks anymore.
If absence of matter is basically a vacuum, that’s zero mass, but how would you get negative mass???
Also, if negative mass is so close to positive mass, why don’t they interact, combine, or clash? Even if it is mass without matter, which is hard to fathom, why are they stable together? And more importantly, even if it’s positive mass and negative mass (without matter), why wouldn’t they also negate each other’s effects on gravity?
Negative gravity is the answer to the ages-old question of...
is there anti-gravity.
Anti-gravity will offer a lot of solutions to space travel, and lighter than air airplanes. With anti-gravity, we would not need fuels and we could just bounce from one part of the planet to any other with no worries about landing and getting hurt.
I just need funding to conduct the final research to get this theory confirmed.
BTW, I have another theory about what ‘gravity’ is and what causes it. If anybody wants to know it, just comment below.
“ Images of broken light which dance before me like a million eyes,
They call me on and on across the universe,
Thoughts meander like a restless wind
Inside a letter box they
Tumble blindly as they make their way
Across the universe”
People of color women and marginalized communities hardest hit.
If our theories about the Big Bang and Inflation are mostly correct, then it makes sense that space wasn't necessarily uniform to begin with. This might also explain the graininess of the background radiation and the discovery by the Webb telescope of galaxies that appear more well formed than expected in the early universe.
Realistically they don’t know.
Photons can’t have mass, theoretically
but gravity can move them.
What causes gravity?
they don’t know, so they give BS
explanations.
We don’t know a lot of stuff.
What I find a little disturbing
is the reluctance to admit ignorance.
So we have a theory to refute an earlier theory for which there is no evidence. Modern Astrophysics
In their never ending attempt to explain away GOD as the Creator and Master of the universe, secular scientists come up with all kinds of explanations to convince young and old brains full of mush that we, and the universe, came into being by pure chance. One of those yet to be proven theories is the presence of Dark Matter. However, many decades and billions of tax dollars later, astrophysicists still have yet to prove Dark Matter even exists.
I first read about the search to prove Dark Matter exists when I read an article back in 2006 on space.com. I was shocked when I read the article that a scientist actually said you need to believe it exists. I thought, "Wait a minute, did I just read a scientist use the phrase, "you must believe that something that has not yet been detected exists?" to explain the existence of something? Sounds a lot like religion doesn't it? The article was posted in space.com way back in September 2007.
Read this FreeRepublic post I originally posted in 2009. It is a FreeRepublic thread so no need to leave FR.
Christ Is The Dark Matter Scientists Are Looking For
Any object with negative mass should produce some very interesting, and predictable, effects. My alternate theory is that someone out there is slowing neutrinos down. Neutrinos have very little mass, but not zero. The Universe produces them in abundance but there is not much out there to change them once made. This missing mass are simply neutrinos in orbit with everything else.