On Nov 29, 5:31*pm, "hanson" wrote:
Paul, "PD" wrote:

(1) Paul wrote http://tinyurl.com/Paul-Drapers-Mass
(2) hanson wrote http://tinyurl.com/Questions-on-Mass-definition
*wherein the following points, made by Paul, are
worthwhile to pursue:

Paul wrote:

Well, let me clarify this a little, because your perception
is just a touch off.

hanson wrote:

ahahahaha... Good one!.. You sound now like Reverend
Koster who caught me washing my balls in the chalice of
holy water after his beautiful wife Laura Lee gave me a
phenomenal & memorable ride on the altar... ahahahaha....
"your perception is just a touch off" cuz "this isn't what it
looks like, Reverend Koster"... ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.....

Earlier, hanson wrote:

As said, your pov on this is different of course...

Paul wrote:

Not so very different.

Earlier, hanson wrote:

the establishment's definition of mass-variability as ... ||[1]||
(mass) = sqrt ((Sum (energies))^2 - (Sum (momentum))^2).
Now the sqrt in that notion ||[1]|| also implies that mass can
be negative. How is that dealt with? Can one read into this
that positive & negative mass properties do fundamentally
attract and annihilate each other.. aka .. Gravitation...??

Paul wrote:

I'm not sure why you think mass could be negative?
Because the sqrt of 4 is +2 and -2?.
If that's the case, then allow me to clarify further that the positive
root is what is intended.

hanson wrote:

If so,
then there is a corollary here with EM in e = sqrt (hbar*a*c)
or also with Planck's expression that m_Pl = e* sqrt (a/G)
which then too must be very fundamental equations, both
of which indicate that mass & charge can be + or -.

Paul wrote:

Again, the positive root is what is intended in both cases.

hanson wrote:

Yes, Paul, it would interest me, why only "the positive root
is what is intended". If mass is not a lump of stuff but more
of an Energy-Momentum-acceleration thing ||[1]|| then why
can't it be negative? The force implied in the momentum
would merely change the direction from pos to neg. Right?

It's no so much a matter of what the implications of negative mass
would be. The ultimate arbiter is whether negative mass is ever
actually observed -- and there are plenty of places where if it
existed, we would be able to look. For example, we've created
antimatter, and you would expect that if antimatter has negative mass,
it would fall up in Earth's gravitational field. As far as we can
tell, it doesn't.


An/your answer that this is so because it is observed, then
raises the question of why this is advocated in a mathematical
form that presents/gives two choices?

The math is fit to nature, not the other way around.
A positive square root is still a square root. The only thing needed
is to be clear about which root you mean when you write down the math.

There are LOTS of places where square roots are used in physics and
where only the positive square root is implied. For example, the
period of a simple pendulum is T = (1/2pi)sqrt(L/g), where L is the
length of the pendulum. This doesn't and shouldn't imply to you that
there are both positive and negative periods to a pendulum.



PS:
ahahaaha...Such dual possibilities invite gimmickry galo
http://tinyurl.com/The-50-vs-41-Einstein-hoses