I believe there are only two states in the universe that are working in opposite, Mass and Anti-Mass and the conversion of Mass into Anti-Mass according to temperature, pressure and density. Density= the rate of conversion to zero mass. The photon or energy released has no mass. In my previous thread we had touched on the subject of the Universe expanding because the density inside is greater than the outside. The recent observation that the Earthlike planet apparently having a density equal to Balsa Wood furthers my hypothesis as well as the natural occurences of Fire and its tendency to form a circle in Microgravity.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/fire1.htm

Fire basically converts something of mass into a zero mass gas allowing it to overcome gravity and rise, while dropping off any Carbon or heavier elements as ash.

Air: A High-pressure Fluid
One amazing thing about living on earth is that we are constantly walking around in a high-pressure fluid -- a substance with mass and no shape.
Depending on the pressure it can be heavier or lighter in its relationship to gravity.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/hot-air-balloon6.htm

As stated in my previous threads moving from the center of the Earth outward to the outer boundaries of the Universe it becomes less and less dense. The planets vary in density according to their relationship in the move outward as well as their mass and its relationship to gravity?

The Mass is by definition positive always. There is matter and antimatter which have a different spin. Matter and antimatter may annihilate and emit two gamma rays moving in oposite direction.
The gravitational mass before and after annihilation remains the same. The rest mass after annihilation is zero.
The gravity is balanced by oscillation of the particles (kinetic energy).

MMMM, let's see, I have done this experiment at school. You can just do electrolysis of water, splitting it in H₂ and O₂ and then you can light the top of the arm of the instrument in which the hydrogen is collected and when done carefully you can burn the hydrogen, creating water. And there will be fire, but no ash, unless you call water ash.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Coliver,

I think you have Mass/Massless/Negative Mass(not proven yet) particles confused with Matter/Antimatter/Mirror Matter(not proven yet).

Negative Mass particles are so far only a mathmatic product of our current physicis, there does not appear to be any evidence they actually exist.

Matter and Antimatter do eliminate each other, however they do produce waste products. In the form of gamma radiation. 2 Gamma rays per Electron/Positron. Approx 2800 Gamma rays per Proton/Anti-Proton. 1 Gamma ray per Nutrino/Anti-Nutrino.

Mirror Matter is another unproven concept of the mathmatics. When Matter (both Matter/Anti Matter) formed, it left holes in the energy they formed from. It's hypothisized those 'holes' are Mirror Matter. It's related to Super Symetry.

If there is actually something like Anti-Mass, it would likely only form in the Mirror Matter context.

The problems with this are many. The main one is if the Universe formed a Matter/Mirror Matter duality then our SR/GR/QTM models break down, because the mass of our part, is countered by the mass of the mirror part. Leading to a total mass of exactly zero for the universe.

__________________
There is no problem that cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives - US Army Demolitions School

I just saw Hayley's comet, she waved, Said "why you always running in place? Even the man in the moon disappeared, Somewhere in the stratosphere" - Shinedown

http://worldsofothersuns.home.comcast.net/

Coll, your physics (and chemistry) ideas are little hazy. Try a few (really) basic texts. Wiki might help, as survey articles they are usually good.

Briefly, fire is a chemical reaction. For practical purposes, there is no change in the weight of the elements being oxidized. Note that this is 'element' in the modern periodic table sense.

Air exerts pressure uniformly in all directions. It is not directed upwards only. Each square inch of the Earth's surface at sea level is subjected to a downward force of about 15 pounds per square inch by gravity acting on the air above it, and resists with a force of 15 pounds per square inch of upward force. Net result, zero.

Briefly, fire is a chemical reaction. For practical purposes, there is no change in the weight of the elements being oxidized. Note that this is 'element' in the modern periodic table sense.

But couldnt the chemical process be emitting something with zero mass? The elements weight doesnt change that are left behind but the energy or light created has no mass or weight ?

As you move upwards from Sea Level the pressure PSI gets smaller and smaller as does the effects of gravity right?

What I guess Im trying to say is that the flashpoint of an object or mass thats burning is related to its density or atomic structure and the pressure/gravity that surrounds it. And the conversion of mass into kinetic energy or light photons or whatever is creating the opposite of mass? Light and Darkness so to speak, Something like that? Or Negative-Mass as Dgavin put it.

Also Im suggesting that a planets size and gravity relationship in the soup of the universe has a direct bearing on its density? Because Gravity is exerting different PSI of pressure or whatever? According to its size and distance from its sun, placement in space etc.?

Flashpoint? Hmm, a lot of variables. As I recall, hydrogen and oxygen mixtures are still explosive at only one or two degrees Kelvin, and I think some experimenters found it out the hard way.

More later.

This excerpt from the Tres4 story is an example of what I am saying about Gravity and Pressure and Density relationships?

That would probably be after it was converted to a gas right?

Gas is never "zero mass." If it's hot and of mostly similar gases, it will tend to rise a it's less dense than the surrounding gases.

The ash from forest fires is deposited round the globe.

Its not the gas that Im referring to , its the energy expeled from the conversion that has zero mass. The ash that is left is the mass which has expeled the anti-mass? Does an object cease to exist or is it simply converted back to an energy form, thats the basic question Im hypothesizing?

I just realized another thing concerning mass and anti-mass. The density of an objects mass is what keeps it in material existence unless it reaches its flashpoint. Everything in the Universe that has Mass oxidizes over time but faster if its density falls below its flashpoint. Example: A Rice paper Balloon 5" in diameter VS an Iron Ball 5" in Diameter. Light a match to both and the less dense object is no longer in existence. But what does that mean? Is it just converted to another form of energy or does it cease to exist period? Could what I am calling Anti-Mass be Dark Matter? Or the opposite of Mass?

Fires give off energy in the form of photons. Full stop.

As the mass is burned, the substance changes to a simpler chemical form. The atomic change creates photons. The energy of the photon released is dependant on the substance burning.

The original substance is forever changed into a different element/substance/compound (or ceases to exist if you like) and what you are calling "antimass" is actually just the release of photons. It's well understood.

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

Further evidence that the Universe is expanding because the Mass inside is greater than the outside?

I assume the word 'element' is a typo. The discussion is ordinary combustion, not fission or fusion. Or are you testing to see if we're awake?

Outside what?

Sorry, it relates to what I had been saying in previous threads about a Round Universe.. That the densities moving outward from Earths core get increasingly less dense. The Ocean, our Atmosphere, the Stratosphere etc.. And perhaps there is an even less dense atmosphere outside of our visible universe? The recent finding of the Blank Space with no matter suggests to me that perhaps most of the matter is concentrated in our area and as you move outward may be less scarce and less dense?

Isnt there evidence that at its basic component that everything in the Universe is just energy or the lack of it? Either a positive or negative charge? And plasma is just an electrical phenomenon, or is that ET? Im not trying to pose any positions on the subject, Im just wondering what the latest mainstram thinking is on the idea?

I think Ive got it, we pretty much came to a concensus I believe in my previous thread that The Universe is ROUND like a ball and I had speculated that the density outside the ball is less dense. My hypothesis is that as the Mass Inside the ball increases to Greater than the Outside of the ball the Universe Expands. Every time a new Star or Galaxy or Planet is born it increases the density inside and forces an expansion of the negative space or Dark Matter or whatever the Universe is made of. Everything thats not Mass. This started with one very small reaction billions of years ago like maybe a marble size for instance and has grown to say a Beach Ball? The Universe is basically blowing up like a balloon with each new addition of mass.

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

Are you revisiting Fred Hoyle's continuous creation theory?

For the most part I am seeing a lot of incoherent chatter that reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of entry level chemistry and physics. I join others in recommending that you read up on these topics in readily available references.

Hello:

Sorry, but I alway use a little math, makes things real for me. What is the relationship between mass, energy, and momentum? It looks a little bit like something that Pythagoras would write:

m² c⁴ = E² - P² c²

There is one and only one known particle where m=0, which means that its energy is always exactly to its 3-momentum, and that is for the photon, the stuff of light. Everything else - no exceptions - has a positive mass. An electron has the same mass as its antiparticle, the positron. What changes is all quantum numbers flip signs, so the negative electric charge becomes the positive electric charge of the positron. Note: mass is NOT a quantum number, sorry.

doug

?? Im not familiar with that theory? Do you have any links to it, Id like to take a look.

Let me ask you a question. Did Sir Isaac Newton know Physics when he made his observations? No, it was his observations that led to Physics. I do know that much And I have been studying up on the subject. The whole idea that the Universe is expanding at all is based on a 19th Century observation isnt it?

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

I may be getting this wrong but we dont know what we cant see. If every known particle with a positive charge has an anti-particle. Then isnt it possible that the Photon or light has an opposite as well? Thats what I am basically suggetsing about Dark Matter or Energy or whatever the space is besides Mass, in the Universe?

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

No. Im supporting the Big Bang, and the expansion of the Universe. Im only suggesting a different method of expansion and that there may be another atmosphere outside of the Universe less dense than the inside. Basically that the Universe is expanding because the density inside is greater than the outside with expansion due to the increasing Mass.

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

Sorry, bzzt, next contestant. The hot gas given off by a flame does not have zero mass. The reason it rises is simply because it is less dense than the surrounding air.

And the paper ball that you burned a few messages ago? The starch of which it was made is combined with oxygen from the air to make carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, water, and some other stuff. It's all still there, it just isn't solid starch any more.

Density doesn't have any relation to flammability. Aerogels made of silicon dioxide are non-flammable.

Find a community college and take a beginning chemistry course.

Fred

__________________
"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

A photon is its own antiparticle. Dark mass is a hypothesis used to explain the motion of large systems. That is different from dark energy, a different hypothesis to explain the acceleration seen of the Universe.

Buy lots of books by Feynman, and spend a HUGE amount of time with them. I consider you to be in the "babling" phase, which means that you are using little bits of jargon, but stringing them together in ways that do not make sense. I did a similar thing (privately) twenty years ago.

doug

This was an old discussion weeks ago and debunked by Mugaliens and Kelfazin. Thats not even really what my hypothesis is about, read the most recent posts like #19 down.

With fire its the oxygen that burns, not the fuel. The mass is dropped off as ash and its not the gas dispeled that Im referring to its the energy. In my hypothesis it would be converted to Kinetic Energy. If energy cant be created or destroyed it has to go somewhere.

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

I agree Sweetster, Im running too many things together and working between two threads. Take a look at my other thread "Is Dark Matter Spacetime" and maybe it will make more sense? Its still just observation but Id be curious as to how the Math would work out? Or how I could measure the density.

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009