Interesting question, I suppose, and I'm sure someone here knows. 
Yes, that's right, hot live sex!
quote:
Waisztarroz's fortune cookie read:
If something had a negative mass, does that mean it would require less and less force to be propelled forward or that it would give off more and more force as it propelled forward?Interesting question, I suppose, and I'm sure someone here knows.
Gut reaction is that negative mass = negative gravity.
alltho it might also meen that it would annihalate itself after comeing into contact with normal matter.
So you had to add mass to such an object if you wanted it to weigh nothing?
quote:
Ford Prefect had this to say about Knight Rider:
Any object with negative mass would slowly expand due to the repulsion forces created by its negative mass. In doing so, it would absorb negative amounts of energy (thus releasing energy). This would hold true so long as the negative mass matter did not come in contact with any positive mass matter. If negative mass matter contacted positive mass matter, the two would destroy each other, with no net change in mass or energy.
[ 05-28-2002: Message edited by: Kyubi ]
[ 05-28-2002: Message edited by: Waisztarroz ]
Yes, that's right, hot live sex!Objects of positive mass would be attracted to objects of negative mass, so isolating your negative mass matter would be very complicated. Note also that positive and negative mass matter accelerating towards each other would result in no net energy change.
Given the nature of the universe, negative mass isn't possible.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
Energy = mass*c^2, remember?Given the nature of the universe, negative mass isn't possible.
Yes, negative mass is possible. Well, negative brain mass, that is. See a few of our friendly neighborhood banned posters.
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Kegwen 2.0 said:
luv u lets cyber la~
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
Energy = mass*c^2, remember?Given the nature of the universe, negative mass isn't possible.
Not quite, the real equation is E^2 = M^2*c^4
takeing the square root of both sides gives you E = M*c^2
So negtive mass and energy are both possable.
quote:
How.... Suddar Williams.... uughhhhhh:
I want your sex, Kegwen.
OH YEHA GEORGE MICHEAAL!!
YEY!
quote:
Fennar had this to say about (_|_):
Not quite, the real equation is E^2 = M^2*c^4takeing the square root of both sides gives you E = M*c^2
So negtive mass and energy are both possable.
Since when does one say the "real" definition of one-quarter is one-half squared, making it possible that things are made of negative parts?
Nothing I've ever seen in years of reading physics casually has mentioned negative mass. There was some SF-type speculation about particles that moved no slower than light (tachyons), but the math doesn't support their existence.
Negative mass is an absurdity, unless you know something you're not telling.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
2. -mass (theoritical) would force the expansion of the universe and be only found at the edge, otherwise the likeliness of it finding +mass would be a lot higher
3. there is no real negative root for E^2=m^2c^4 via regular methods of those after unified theory, only "positive" is real here.
I'll bring more later after I go through a few books
Negative mass is a consideration of psudoscience, or a mathematical error.
At least, unless something really radical proves this incorrect.
[ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: Pvednes Phoenixfeather ]
