Larry Caldwell wrote:
> In article <8254390b-5b5f-4c58-9b7d-53492f43e2f5
> @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, warlordbcm1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(WarLord) says...
>
>> Ok, now the question: Lets assume for a sec that 'negative
>> energy' photons (anti-photons wouldn't be correct, since this have no
>> relation with anti-matter. ... "-photons" perhaps?) could exist and be
>> splited from it's positive energy counterparts
>
> If it's negative energy you are after, you don't have to go sub-atomic.
> Gravity is a negative energy field. An object falling in a
> gravitational field gains kinetic energy from the field. To conserve
> energy, the field has to lose energy. The farther in you fall, the more
> negative the field becomes.
Gravitational fields don't lose energy just because they did work on
something else. The kinetic energy increases but the potential energy
decreases; total energy is conserved.
What you are suggesting would literally be equivalent to insisting that
as objects fall to Earth, Earth loses mass, which is preposterous.
--
Erik Max Francis && max@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
&& http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility.
-- James Thurber
|
