Recent content by omegabeta

I'm sorry I'm not being clear about what exactly my point is, if in fact I have one at all. Putting it as simply and concisely as I can. If I ask myself "is there a limit to energy density"? I find only one answer; the Planck energy density. I get a geometric picture quite clearly. You won't...

The key point you make is taken; that the question is nonsense. That's the end of the story. Thank you all, now I can rest easy.

For me it's a matter of what comes first, quantum gravity or the question that leads to it. I readily admit to not having a clue when all's told. However; are you saying that there is no way to calculate the energy at which light is pi times its own gravitational radius in GRT? Light curves...

The thing I'd like to resolve for myself the most is; when I use GRT to calculate the energy density needed for light to close its own local space-time I get the Planck energy. That is, when the wavelength of light equals pi times its own gravitational radius the energy is the Planck energy. If...

It seems to me that singularities are taken for granted as existing, otherwise there couldn't be a big bang. Is that so? To me, to believe in singularities is in no way different to believing in a God. Is there any reason you can think of that precludes all other scenarios from explaining...

Ok Simon, might take a while though. Thank's everyone, seems no-one really knows what's going on, especially with neutrino's. So like Simon says, I've got to do it myself alone. In the unlikely event I get it happening, then others will want to know how it's done. I've always thought it too...

Positrons don't help: thank you anyway. Like a monkey on a type writer, I've been playing around with various ways of putting the Universe together using algebraic manipulation of the constants of nature, h, G, c, e, ect. What I came up with doesn't interest anyone. However I'm sure people...

Gee, thanks everybody for your replies. Firstly I'm thinking of the type of negative mass that voltz mentioned. "display properties of both being gravitationally repulsive to positive mass objects and being accelerated by a force in the opposite direction it is applied". The reason I'm...

Can anyone think of an empirical reason the neutrino could not possibly have a negative mass; that is any of its states?

I've been telling kids for years that a basic or better understanding of physics will increase their chances of survival in almost all scenarios. Staying alive is only one reason, but not a bad one I'd suggest.

May I suggest it's because the volume in cubic meters in less than 10^-99, hence your calculator figures this is as good as zero. Fair enough wouldn't you say!