whulorigan 
March 23rd, 2021 04:06 PM 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Werner
(Post 623587)
... Antigravity would have tidal force, it would have a pan caking effect rather than a stretching one. The part of you that was closest to the antigravity source would be pushed away the hardest. Antigravity would obey the inverse square law just as gravity does. And while gravity bends space creating a gravity well, antigravity would create a gravity hill, light would bend away from the source of antigravity ... .
Time would move faster the higher up the antigravity well you would climb. Light traveling outward would be blue shifted. You can't make a black hole with negative mass, the event horizon would be turned insideout and be something you cannot enter rather than escape from. Time would also be infinitely accelerated at that insideout event horizon and a white hole would only last for an instant, there would be and explosion and it would be gone, while black holes last nearly forever!
Also when negative mass comes in contact with positive mass, you have nullification rather than annihilation, whereas matter and antimatter produce energy, matter and negative matter just produce nothing. If you drop negative matter into a black hole, it shrinks, that is what Hawking radiation is, negative matter falling into a black hole leaving its positive matter twin particles to come out as radiation.

All true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Werner
(Post 623587)
Stable orbits are impossible to achieve as centrifugal force and antigravity both work in the same direction unlike with gravity where they cancel each other out to achieve orbit.

But remember that much of the discussion depends on the equivalency principle. Inertial mass and gravitational mass are identical by all measurements to date (and General Relativity as formulated and observed to date requires their magnitudes to be identical). Now, all measurements to date have been measurements of positive inertial masses and positive gravitational masses, and it is clear that they are identical as regards their magnitude. But as to whether an object can have a positive value for one and a negative value for the other, that is a matter of conjecture. There is no reason to assume that they should not be identical in terms of sign for a given particle of mass, but neither is there a way to prove it to date. And there is no fundamental requirement from General Relativity that inertial mass and gravitational mass have the same sign. But conceptually there is no reason to think that they shouldn't.
For negativemas/negativemass interactions, "orbital" trajectories would be hyperbolic, a negativemass being forced away from the antigravitating negativemass center (which would be located at the opposite focus external to the hyperbola interior) as compared to a gravitational hyperbolic trajectory for a positivemass object interacting with a positivemass center, whose focus would be the center of gravitation located at the "interior" focus (but could also be a parabola, ellipse or circle, whose foci are also all located interior to the trajectorypath). A negativemass and a positivemass would accelerate as a unit along a vector in the direction of the positive mass, if full inertial/gravitational mass equivalency holds.
Also, a force applied to a negative mass would result in an acceleration in a direction opposite to the force applied. Like electric charges on negative mass particles would attract, and opposite ones would repel. The same would be the case for the Strong Nuclear Force: like colorcharges would attract, and opposites would repel.
