/sci/ - Science & Math

Please provide a woring theory and experimental proof of your assumptions.

Any evidence for negative "gravitational charge"? How can we tell whether you're right?

Does what you're saying even have coherent predictions to make?

Gravitation has no sinks of field lines. Mass density is always positive so they cant repel

>>4448684
Here's the theory: Gravity can have positive or negative charge. Only objects of same charge attract each other, objects of opposite charge repell.

Fuck your experimental proof. There's no experimental proof for string theory or evolution either.

>>4448690
>start with explaining theory
>suddenly go into full retard mode, flip the table
lolwut

And no one accepts string theory ATM. They're attempting to produce a good theory.

>>4448688
Why the fuck do we need predictions? Some day we will leave our solar system and find massive objects that repell us.
It's just a fucking hypothesis without evidence.

>>4448689
How do you know this idea of gravity isn't wrong and there is something like charge?

>>4448690
>theory
>no mathematical framework

NOPE.PNG

>>4448696
>It's just a fucking hypothesis without evidence.
And is therefore worthless at the current time.

>How do you know this idea of gravity isn't wrong and there is something like charge?
How do you know it's wrong? It takes care of what we observe pretty well ATM.

>>4448696
>It's just a fucking hypothesis without evidence.

>>>/x/
>>>/lit/

>>4448690

Gravity is about mass and not charge. Also your theory is not a theory but nonsensical babbeling

>>4448688
"gravitational charge" is mass.

In Newtonian mechanics at least.

>>4448707
It must be wrong. It's not consistent with my hypothesis.

>>4448700
Then make some mathematical framework. I already provided the brilliant idea.

antimatter has negative gravitational charge if CPT invariance holds in curved space-time.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.4937

>>4448725
>I HAVE THIS GREAT IDEA BUT I DON'T KNOW THE MATH

If you can't put it into equations, you don't understand it. Simple.

>>4448726
I thought this had already been investigated (at least preliminarily) with captured antihydrogen at the LHC, and it seems to have normal gravitation?

>>4448735
Okay you idiot. Take the electromagnetic equations and adjust them for gravity. There's your mathematical theorie.

>>4448745
I wonder if this is what it was like for medieval kings to have a court jester. It's sorta amusing.

Try juggling or something though, I'm getting bored.

>>4448738
you are going to need a lot of antihydrogen to test it. they cant make enough yet.

I'm gonna email my theory to Jacob Barnett. Together we will revolutionize physics.

What if...instead of masses pulling the sheet of spacetime down, empty space pulls it up...?

E^2 = m^2 + p^2

Notice the squares
you can't have negative mass

I always thought that the gravitational force is attractive was one of the main assumption that led to General relativity.

>>4448779
Whatever you're thinking is probably mathematically equivalent. No difference. Besides, what you're referring to is just a crude toy concept of what GR says.

>>4448791

/sci/, missing the point since forever

>>4448795
State your point.

>>4448783
>facepalm

>>4448790
Nope.

there are no negative masses