Jump to content

zbigniew.modrzejewski

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-23

1 Follower

About zbigniew.modrzejewski

  • Rank
    Meson

Profile Information

  • Location
    Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
  • Occupation
    Chief R&D Physicist

Recent Profile Visitors

1710 profile views
  1. So, where can we find negative mass? There is no consensus in the physics community if negative mass is even allowed to exist, referring to the so-called positive energy theorem that prohibits negative gravitational masses. Robert Forward was an American science fiction writer. His literary work was noted for its scientific credibility. Robert Forward first pointed out that a gravitational dipole, consisting of ordinary and negative matter, would be self-accelerating thus creating the ultimate propellant-less propulsion system. Up to now, the key ingre
  2. So, what was the physical evidence based on which Bohr put forward his un-scientific speculation regarding model of the atom?
  3. Well, then by your standards it should not have been questioned, nor suspected, nor criticised, becuase it didn't disagree with all scientific evidence at the time!
  4. " So, would you say that a speculation that is in contradiction with some of established science is not a scientific speculation? " If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. Could you give me an example? So, why Bohr put forward that un-scientific speculation that disagreed with experiment ???
  5. So, to rephrase my question in a hope for straight answer : Could a speculation about negative mass be a scientific speculation? Or maybe true mainstream scientists do not ever speculate about the possibility of physical existence of negative mass?
  6. It is not my speculation, but yes, there seems to be a mathematical proof of negative mass being possible. It is not my model, but yes, repulsive gravitational interaction is being speculated as a strong possibility. First of all, we are in the "Speculation" topic, so I do not think that in regards to scientific speculation we need any mathematical proof. Does a scientific hypothesis need a mathematical proof. Is there a difference between: scientific speculation and scientific hypothesis ?
  7. I have come across a speculation regarding negative mass. Could it be a scientific speculation? Or, true mainstream scientists do not speculate about the possibility of physical existence of negative mass, because negative mass could imply repulsive gravitational interactions?
  8. So, would you say that a speculation that is in contradiction with some of established science is not a scientific speculation? Is there a difference between: scientific speculation and scientific hypothesis ?
  9. According to GTR, any repulsive gravity, or "anti-gravity", is simply impossible. Would it be scientific enough to speculate that a new, more complete theory of gravity could explain how repulsive gravity interactions can be possible?
  10. So, is it possible for a real valid scientific speculation to speculate that GTR may not be the "last word" on gravity, and that there could be a better theory of gravity? What is the "overlap" between quantum physics and GTR?
  11. I would like to know what is the difference between: 1. scientific speculations, and 2. pseudo-speculations as it relates to this topic -- "Speculations", and the "Trash Can" topic. Thank you.
  12. Until now, there have been only two working electromagnetic drive prototypes. The first one, EmDrive, was experimentally verified by NASA. Roger Shawyer opens up about the story behind invention of his EmDrive in an exclusive interview with IBTimes UK. The second one is Guido Fetta's Cannae Drive. And there will be many, many more to come. The new era of economic and affordable electromagnetic near-Light-speed space propulsion has barely began, just like the era of electric cars and electric airplanes. There is only one thing more powerful and explosive than all the armies in the
  13. A Debate Over the Physics of Time https://www.quantama...-and-cosmology/ " Many physicists argue that Einstein’s position is implied by the two pillars of modern physics: Einstein’s masterpiece, the general theory of relativity, and the Standard Model of particle physics. The laws that underlie these theories are time-symmetric — that is, the physics they describe is the same, regardless of whether the variable called “time” increases or decreases. Moreover, they say nothing at all about the point we call “now” — a special moment (or so it appears) for us, but seemingly undefined w
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.