This is the first of a number of comments in your last post that seem to indicate a very shaky understanding of even basic physics.
Oh no. I'd forgotten that this board is sometimes frequented by people who believe they have some claim to be "qualified" scientists.
Even supposing you do have "qualifications" in some sort of "professional science", it's still hard to believe that you genuinely believe what you seem to be claiming that because an idea has a page on wikipedia this idea must therefore be true of the universe. I'm tempted to post links to "transubstantiation", "the fifth element", and "Purgatory", and ask you how they're connected now we've moved into the new Mayan epoch.
What claims do you wish me to "support"? I haven't made any positive claims - merely pointed out that yours do not make any sense in the post Newtonian era; or, rather, they have no applicability when you're trying to describe the universe with an inclusion of Relativity.
Let me try to bring it home to you what a complete muddle you get into when you try to foist these two completely different conceptual schemes together. Let's go back to your bizarre hypothesis at the beginning again - (the mere fact that you can seemingly posit such a conceptually impossible hypothesis - in the post 19th Century world - without realising you're talking complete nonsense shows you don't get the fundamental distinction between physics and mathematics, incidentally.)
Your supposed body at rest at an infinite distance from any other body. You say it has zero potential and zero kinetic energy, by definition. Then you posit a change where it "gains" kinetic energy by moving. Right? As though this quantity was something it must
possess, in itself; and as such, must therefore "lose" potential energy, in order for your sum to work out! Do you not know how all this belongs in classical dynamics, and after relativity - special or general - simply has no further applicability? Any more than talking about calorific has after the kinetic theory of heat?
Let's go back a step before the appearance of your second body, causing a gravitational attraction and thus this peculiar production of "negative energy" so that your maths work. Just the one body still, at an infinite distance etcetera. Now - can this body
spin? Would you know if it was "at rest" as you specify, or if it was spinning? What difference would it make to these forms of "energy"? If you could tell, what difference would it make to the two energy calculations if you started it spinning, or stopped it? You claim it's at rest - what happens to the two energies if it's moving instead? You'll have to accelerate it, but only for a bit - then what? It's gained kinetic energy and you claim lost potential energy from its original zero point (
), but what happens when you stop accelerating it - just let it carry on at a constant velocity? Presumably it's gained "potential energy" from somewhere by this laissez faire? And thereby lost kinetic energy? What happened to its mass when you performed your acceleration? Did it have mass before you did this?Does it have it after you stopped? If there's no gravitational attraction, where did this mass come from? Is it purely internal? Then does it change if it's spinning in contrast to its not spinning? If there's no difference, what's happened to your conservation laws? If there is a difference, how would you tell - and if you can't tell, what sense is there in "difference"?
Now suppose your second body comes onto the scene - say, it's the Earth. Your first body moves towards us due to gravitation, doing your magic negative energy trick. But suppose we impart another acceleration in the opposite direction, for a short period, so that it has a velocity greater than the attraction due to gravity between us. Does it have "negative kinetic energy" and thus "positive potential energy" now - and, by your logic, why not? Now suppose a third body, on the other side of it, so that your original is between us and the new one. It's either moving towards us, or towards the third - what's happened to your energy calculation?
I hope a little pondering on these elementary thought experiments will show you that your notion that any body "has" as any sort of intrinsic property either kinetic or potential (or "mechanical" as a combo of the two) energy is conceivable only in a Newtonian universe of absolute space and motion and mass and where gravity is a universal constant force.
Answer the above questions. No link is required - just a little thought.
So how long does an unbaptised child have to stay in Limbo if you pay a bishop to pray for it again?
That should be your "clue", right there.
Oh yes - in this case it's one that reveals the terms of your hypothesis are seriously mistaken. Instead of that conclusion, you've gone on to compound your mistake by then drawing
further implications of your "impossible" hypothesis, claiming that therefore reality works in so and so a manner!
Yes, you've already revealed clearly enough you believe such
basic nonsense.
They're theories that
use mathematics. Theories about how the universe works - they're
physical theories that
use mathematics.
You're seriously confused about the nature of theories in general (and specifically, these "two"!), and of the relation between physics and mathematics. The mathematical structures that led to predictions of anti-matter, the CBR, Higgs boson etc didn't come from nowhere. They were elaborated in the first place to account for observational data. This is how it works:
If they do so correctly,
then such and such ought to be observable.
So what?
You believe the exclusion principle states that two bodies with no mass can occupy the same point, do you? Or that the reason they can't is because they have mass? Just google it.
So from what you've said we must suppose these "bodies" must be bosons? You reckon your "thought experiment" works with something like photons. Explain to me the distinction between kinetic and potential energies as it relates to a photon, if you would: it sounds absolutely fascinating! And these two photons, occupying the same point in space - when does this happen, exactly? And they're "at rest", you say? But able to exert gravitational attraction? Pass gluons between each other, presumably? In such a way as to produce an "infinite gravitational field"?
I confess, I'm a bit lost with such vastly superior understanding of exotic physics. Please take it step by step.
The postulation of potential and kinetic energy is purely apparent in Special Reltivity and entirely superfluous in General Relativity - the distinction is supervenient from an entirely different conceptual scheme. One that
also includes energy due to mass, incidentally: merely one minor reason it's a far superior conceptual apparatus than the one you're trying to say is a "fundamental principle of physics".
Does it hell. It doesn't help explain anything if it doesn't exist.
It's no more of a "result" than your conclusions drawn from your impossible thought experiment. Or for that matter - it has no more explanatory content, or evidentiary basis - than Abacus' equally fantastical conclusion from
his "thought experiment" that "everything is caused by the mind of God."
What concept? "Negative energy"? I'm pretty certain I've read every word Einstein ever wrote about his two theories, and I cannot recall him
ever using the notion. If he ever bothered to respond to Bondi's wild hypothesis, which was the first appearance of the notion, it would have been a far more impressive piece of evidence than mere support for the existence of "negative energy", because Bondi didn't propose it until after Einstein's death.
It's more a case of you being obliged to provide evidence that there is more than a few who do! The only three that I'm aware of are notorious for loudly proclaiming outlandish new ideas, and at the very least to put it mildly greatly enjoy their enfant terrible status as mavericks. You will no doubt - if what you claim is a generally accepted truth and "fundamental principle" - be able to provide rather more than the scrappy little link you posted to Abacus. There'll be pages and pages on wiki, full of mathematical formulations, observational confirmations, theoretical implications, experiments ongoing and proposed to confirm and explore the concept, libraries of textbooks explaining and exploring such a radical notion, and so on. But there isn't, is there? That little paragraph or two - entirely speculative, almost contentless - is about all there is - right?
Does this face look bothered? I'm only "bothering" to counterbalance your completely inappropriate response to the opening query, which attempted to convey the impression that a) you know more than you do, and b) what you claim you know is in any way useful or accepted.