Can mass be shunted off into hyperspace, but the matter remains?How much energy does this sun crushing ship, the CrushSun, use?How to build a telescope using gravitational lensing?Could black holes be a better source of energy than stars?Physical laws for a multiverse with white holes?Would immovable rods have infinite mass?What would happen if you could remove the event horizon from Sgr A*?How do I create the largest possible space habitat for humans?Almost realistic way to beat entropyWhat is the “fullest” the universe could be in terms of living space?The mass of an economically feasible non-microscopic traversable wormhole

Is it possible to create a QR code using text?

How can I deal with my CEO asking me to hire someone with a higher salary than me, a co-founder?

Which is the best way to check return result?

Forming a German sentence with/without the verb at the end

Arrow those variables!

Why didn't Miles's spider sense work before?

GFCI outlets - can they be repaired? Are they really needed at the end of a circuit?

How can saying a song's name be a copyright violation?

Do UK voters know if their MP will be the Speaker of the House?

Can mass be shunted off into hyperspace, but the matter remains?

What does the expression "A Mann!" means

What mechanic is there to disable a threat instead of killing it?

Is it inappropriate for a student to attend their mentor's dissertation defense?

How to prevent "they're falling in love" trope

Why didn't Boeing produce its own regional jet?

Can I run a new neutral wire to repair a broken circuit?

How seriously should I take size and weight limits of hand luggage?

How badly should I try to prevent a user from XSSing themselves?

What are some good books on Machine Learning and AI like Krugman, Wells and Graddy's "Essentials of Economics"

Bullying boss launched a smear campaign and made me unemployable

Does the Idaho Potato Commission associate potato skins with healthy eating?

Can we compute the area of a quadrilateral with one right angle when we only know the lengths of any three sides?

What is a romance in Latin?

Expand and Contract



Can mass be shunted off into hyperspace, but the matter remains?


How much energy does this sun crushing ship, the CrushSun, use?How to build a telescope using gravitational lensing?Could black holes be a better source of energy than stars?Physical laws for a multiverse with white holes?Would immovable rods have infinite mass?What would happen if you could remove the event horizon from Sgr A*?How do I create the largest possible space habitat for humans?Almost realistic way to beat entropyWhat is the “fullest” the universe could be in terms of living space?The mass of an economically feasible non-microscopic traversable wormhole













3












$begingroup$


My question is this: can excess mass be bled off into hyperspace (the large and compact extra dimensions, not the Star Wars-esque swirling vortex), yet the matter remains in our universe?



Is mass too fundamentally tied to matter for this to happen, or is it possible to condense a galaxy into a "small" area, but shunt off mass so it doesn't collapse into a black hole?






science-based physics spacetime-dimensions







share|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    I can clarify and edit the question if needed.
    $endgroup$
    – Ushumgallu
    4 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    What is "excess mass"? Would the matter, after shedding that "excess mass", remain normal matter or it has to become "exotic"? This is outside the realm of known science, by the way.
    $endgroup$
    – Alexander
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I'm not sure if this question is answerable. Just the existence of hyperspace or "large and compact extra dimensions" is purely theoretical. It's pretty hard to give a science-based answer to a question which is asking about things that haven't been experimentally verified in any way.
    $endgroup$
    – Gryphon
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Mass is the energy intrinsic to holding a particle together. The energy allowing the particle to exist is its mass. You can't take the mass away from the particle. That's like taking the speed away from a moving train, without stopping it.
    $endgroup$
    – Adrian Hall
    3 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It's a common misconception that the Higgs boson provides mass; the existence of the boson is predicted by the standard model and so finding it is evidence for the standard model, but it's not the boson itself that provides mass. Also, while the Higgs mechanism is responsible for the rest mass of fundamental particles, the majority of observed mass is actually due to binding energy, which doesn't involve the Higgs field at all. As @Adrian Hall put it, what we call mass is largely the result of the energy holding stuff together.
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Bryant
    1 hour ago















3












$begingroup$


My question is this: can excess mass be bled off into hyperspace (the large and compact extra dimensions, not the Star Wars-esque swirling vortex), yet the matter remains in our universe?



Is mass too fundamentally tied to matter for this to happen, or is it possible to condense a galaxy into a "small" area, but shunt off mass so it doesn't collapse into a black hole?






science-based physics spacetime-dimensions







share|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    I can clarify and edit the question if needed.
    $endgroup$
    – Ushumgallu
    4 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    What is "excess mass"? Would the matter, after shedding that "excess mass", remain normal matter or it has to become "exotic"? This is outside the realm of known science, by the way.
    $endgroup$
    – Alexander
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I'm not sure if this question is answerable. Just the existence of hyperspace or "large and compact extra dimensions" is purely theoretical. It's pretty hard to give a science-based answer to a question which is asking about things that haven't been experimentally verified in any way.
    $endgroup$
    – Gryphon
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Mass is the energy intrinsic to holding a particle together. The energy allowing the particle to exist is its mass. You can't take the mass away from the particle. That's like taking the speed away from a moving train, without stopping it.
    $endgroup$
    – Adrian Hall
    3 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It's a common misconception that the Higgs boson provides mass; the existence of the boson is predicted by the standard model and so finding it is evidence for the standard model, but it's not the boson itself that provides mass. Also, while the Higgs mechanism is responsible for the rest mass of fundamental particles, the majority of observed mass is actually due to binding energy, which doesn't involve the Higgs field at all. As @Adrian Hall put it, what we call mass is largely the result of the energy holding stuff together.
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Bryant
    1 hour ago













3












3








3





$begingroup$


My question is this: can excess mass be bled off into hyperspace (the large and compact extra dimensions, not the Star Wars-esque swirling vortex), yet the matter remains in our universe?



Is mass too fundamentally tied to matter for this to happen, or is it possible to condense a galaxy into a "small" area, but shunt off mass so it doesn't collapse into a black hole?






science-based physics spacetime-dimensions







share|improve this question











$endgroup$




My question is this: can excess mass be bled off into hyperspace (the large and compact extra dimensions, not the Star Wars-esque swirling vortex), yet the matter remains in our universe?



Is mass too fundamentally tied to matter for this to happen, or is it possible to condense a galaxy into a "small" area, but shunt off mass so it doesn't collapse into a black hole?






science-based physics spacetime-dimensions




science-based physics spacetime-dimensions






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 3 hours ago









Cyn

10.9k12350




10.9k12350










asked 4 hours ago









UshumgalluUshumgallu

1258




1258











  • $begingroup$
    I can clarify and edit the question if needed.
    $endgroup$
    – Ushumgallu
    4 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    What is "excess mass"? Would the matter, after shedding that "excess mass", remain normal matter or it has to become "exotic"? This is outside the realm of known science, by the way.
    $endgroup$
    – Alexander
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I'm not sure if this question is answerable. Just the existence of hyperspace or "large and compact extra dimensions" is purely theoretical. It's pretty hard to give a science-based answer to a question which is asking about things that haven't been experimentally verified in any way.
    $endgroup$
    – Gryphon
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Mass is the energy intrinsic to holding a particle together. The energy allowing the particle to exist is its mass. You can't take the mass away from the particle. That's like taking the speed away from a moving train, without stopping it.
    $endgroup$
    – Adrian Hall
    3 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It's a common misconception that the Higgs boson provides mass; the existence of the boson is predicted by the standard model and so finding it is evidence for the standard model, but it's not the boson itself that provides mass. Also, while the Higgs mechanism is responsible for the rest mass of fundamental particles, the majority of observed mass is actually due to binding energy, which doesn't involve the Higgs field at all. As @Adrian Hall put it, what we call mass is largely the result of the energy holding stuff together.
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Bryant
    1 hour ago
















  • $begingroup$
    I can clarify and edit the question if needed.
    $endgroup$
    – Ushumgallu
    4 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    What is "excess mass"? Would the matter, after shedding that "excess mass", remain normal matter or it has to become "exotic"? This is outside the realm of known science, by the way.
    $endgroup$
    – Alexander
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I'm not sure if this question is answerable. Just the existence of hyperspace or "large and compact extra dimensions" is purely theoretical. It's pretty hard to give a science-based answer to a question which is asking about things that haven't been experimentally verified in any way.
    $endgroup$
    – Gryphon
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Mass is the energy intrinsic to holding a particle together. The energy allowing the particle to exist is its mass. You can't take the mass away from the particle. That's like taking the speed away from a moving train, without stopping it.
    $endgroup$
    – Adrian Hall
    3 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It's a common misconception that the Higgs boson provides mass; the existence of the boson is predicted by the standard model and so finding it is evidence for the standard model, but it's not the boson itself that provides mass. Also, while the Higgs mechanism is responsible for the rest mass of fundamental particles, the majority of observed mass is actually due to binding energy, which doesn't involve the Higgs field at all. As @Adrian Hall put it, what we call mass is largely the result of the energy holding stuff together.
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Bryant
    1 hour ago















$begingroup$
I can clarify and edit the question if needed.
$endgroup$
– Ushumgallu
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
I can clarify and edit the question if needed.
$endgroup$
– Ushumgallu
4 hours ago




3




3




$begingroup$
What is "excess mass"? Would the matter, after shedding that "excess mass", remain normal matter or it has to become "exotic"? This is outside the realm of known science, by the way.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
What is "excess mass"? Would the matter, after shedding that "excess mass", remain normal matter or it has to become "exotic"? This is outside the realm of known science, by the way.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
4 hours ago












$begingroup$
I'm not sure if this question is answerable. Just the existence of hyperspace or "large and compact extra dimensions" is purely theoretical. It's pretty hard to give a science-based answer to a question which is asking about things that haven't been experimentally verified in any way.
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
I'm not sure if this question is answerable. Just the existence of hyperspace or "large and compact extra dimensions" is purely theoretical. It's pretty hard to give a science-based answer to a question which is asking about things that haven't been experimentally verified in any way.
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
4 hours ago












$begingroup$
Mass is the energy intrinsic to holding a particle together. The energy allowing the particle to exist is its mass. You can't take the mass away from the particle. That's like taking the speed away from a moving train, without stopping it.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Hall
3 hours ago





$begingroup$
Mass is the energy intrinsic to holding a particle together. The energy allowing the particle to exist is its mass. You can't take the mass away from the particle. That's like taking the speed away from a moving train, without stopping it.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Hall
3 hours ago





1




1




$begingroup$
It's a common misconception that the Higgs boson provides mass; the existence of the boson is predicted by the standard model and so finding it is evidence for the standard model, but it's not the boson itself that provides mass. Also, while the Higgs mechanism is responsible for the rest mass of fundamental particles, the majority of observed mass is actually due to binding energy, which doesn't involve the Higgs field at all. As @Adrian Hall put it, what we call mass is largely the result of the energy holding stuff together.
$endgroup$
– Dan Bryant
1 hour ago




$begingroup$
It's a common misconception that the Higgs boson provides mass; the existence of the boson is predicted by the standard model and so finding it is evidence for the standard model, but it's not the boson itself that provides mass. Also, while the Higgs mechanism is responsible for the rest mass of fundamental particles, the majority of observed mass is actually due to binding energy, which doesn't involve the Higgs field at all. As @Adrian Hall put it, what we call mass is largely the result of the energy holding stuff together.
$endgroup$
– Dan Bryant
1 hour ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















8












$begingroup$

From the wiki:




In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume. All everyday objects that can be touched are ultimately composed of atoms, which are made up of interacting subatomic particles, and in everyday as well as scientific usage, "matter" generally includes atoms and anything made up of them, and any particles (or combination of particles) that act as if they have both rest mass and volume. However it does not include massless particles such as photons, or other energy phenomena (...)




So no, you can't dissociate one from another, at least not according to our current understanding of science.



That does not keep authors from creating sci-fi munbo-jumbo like EA's Mass Effect, which allows for all kinds of magic. But those have no scientific basis.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Agreed, mass can be thought of in different ways: Inertial mass, active/passive gravitational mass. It is both a property of matter and measure of its resistance to acceleration.
    $endgroup$
    – Rob
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @rob indeed, it is kind of a miracle that the inertial mass equals the gravitational mass -- even though the principle of equivalence requires exactly that.
    $endgroup$
    – John Dvorak
    3 hours ago


















1












$begingroup$

There are two kinds of mass. Gravitational mass, which is what keeps you stuck to the ground and makes the planets orbit and all that jazz. The other is inertial mass, which is what pushes back on us when we push on something. Currently, we think these are just two facets of the same phenomenon, but there's no solid proof. If it does turn out that these are actually different things, then it may be possible to alter one without altering the other. This is a big stretch, but if everything I've proposed here is true, you could do exactly what you propose. Reduce gravitational mass while keeping inertial mass the same, and you could make something so large it would normally become a black hole.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Eintein's general theory of relativity itself postulates that we have no means to distinguish. Indeed, any breakthrough on that would be huge.
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    1 hour ago


















0












$begingroup$

What you want here is to mask the mass, not get rid of it. Antigrav is what you're after, integrated such that your system shields objects from each other while maintaining their local gravity wells (so you don't end up with the opposite problem of things spontaneously exploding as soon as gravity isn't holding them together).






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Re: the "problem of things spontaneously exploding," you've just invented the Little Doctor, which has its own set of uses.
    $endgroup$
    – thirtythreeforty
    58 mins ago











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143133%2fcan-mass-be-shunted-off-into-hyperspace-but-the-matter-remains%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









8












$begingroup$

From the wiki:




In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume. All everyday objects that can be touched are ultimately composed of atoms, which are made up of interacting subatomic particles, and in everyday as well as scientific usage, "matter" generally includes atoms and anything made up of them, and any particles (or combination of particles) that act as if they have both rest mass and volume. However it does not include massless particles such as photons, or other energy phenomena (...)




So no, you can't dissociate one from another, at least not according to our current understanding of science.



That does not keep authors from creating sci-fi munbo-jumbo like EA's Mass Effect, which allows for all kinds of magic. But those have no scientific basis.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Agreed, mass can be thought of in different ways: Inertial mass, active/passive gravitational mass. It is both a property of matter and measure of its resistance to acceleration.
    $endgroup$
    – Rob
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @rob indeed, it is kind of a miracle that the inertial mass equals the gravitational mass -- even though the principle of equivalence requires exactly that.
    $endgroup$
    – John Dvorak
    3 hours ago















8












$begingroup$

From the wiki:




In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume. All everyday objects that can be touched are ultimately composed of atoms, which are made up of interacting subatomic particles, and in everyday as well as scientific usage, "matter" generally includes atoms and anything made up of them, and any particles (or combination of particles) that act as if they have both rest mass and volume. However it does not include massless particles such as photons, or other energy phenomena (...)




So no, you can't dissociate one from another, at least not according to our current understanding of science.



That does not keep authors from creating sci-fi munbo-jumbo like EA's Mass Effect, which allows for all kinds of magic. But those have no scientific basis.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Agreed, mass can be thought of in different ways: Inertial mass, active/passive gravitational mass. It is both a property of matter and measure of its resistance to acceleration.
    $endgroup$
    – Rob
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @rob indeed, it is kind of a miracle that the inertial mass equals the gravitational mass -- even though the principle of equivalence requires exactly that.
    $endgroup$
    – John Dvorak
    3 hours ago













8












8








8





$begingroup$

From the wiki:




In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume. All everyday objects that can be touched are ultimately composed of atoms, which are made up of interacting subatomic particles, and in everyday as well as scientific usage, "matter" generally includes atoms and anything made up of them, and any particles (or combination of particles) that act as if they have both rest mass and volume. However it does not include massless particles such as photons, or other energy phenomena (...)




So no, you can't dissociate one from another, at least not according to our current understanding of science.



That does not keep authors from creating sci-fi munbo-jumbo like EA's Mass Effect, which allows for all kinds of magic. But those have no scientific basis.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$



From the wiki:




In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume. All everyday objects that can be touched are ultimately composed of atoms, which are made up of interacting subatomic particles, and in everyday as well as scientific usage, "matter" generally includes atoms and anything made up of them, and any particles (or combination of particles) that act as if they have both rest mass and volume. However it does not include massless particles such as photons, or other energy phenomena (...)




So no, you can't dissociate one from another, at least not according to our current understanding of science.



That does not keep authors from creating sci-fi munbo-jumbo like EA's Mass Effect, which allows for all kinds of magic. But those have no scientific basis.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 1 hour ago

























answered 4 hours ago









RenanRenan

52.2k15119259




52.2k15119259







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Agreed, mass can be thought of in different ways: Inertial mass, active/passive gravitational mass. It is both a property of matter and measure of its resistance to acceleration.
    $endgroup$
    – Rob
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @rob indeed, it is kind of a miracle that the inertial mass equals the gravitational mass -- even though the principle of equivalence requires exactly that.
    $endgroup$
    – John Dvorak
    3 hours ago












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Agreed, mass can be thought of in different ways: Inertial mass, active/passive gravitational mass. It is both a property of matter and measure of its resistance to acceleration.
    $endgroup$
    – Rob
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @rob indeed, it is kind of a miracle that the inertial mass equals the gravitational mass -- even though the principle of equivalence requires exactly that.
    $endgroup$
    – John Dvorak
    3 hours ago







1




1




$begingroup$
Agreed, mass can be thought of in different ways: Inertial mass, active/passive gravitational mass. It is both a property of matter and measure of its resistance to acceleration.
$endgroup$
– Rob
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
Agreed, mass can be thought of in different ways: Inertial mass, active/passive gravitational mass. It is both a property of matter and measure of its resistance to acceleration.
$endgroup$
– Rob
3 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
@rob indeed, it is kind of a miracle that the inertial mass equals the gravitational mass -- even though the principle of equivalence requires exactly that.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
@rob indeed, it is kind of a miracle that the inertial mass equals the gravitational mass -- even though the principle of equivalence requires exactly that.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
3 hours ago











1












$begingroup$

There are two kinds of mass. Gravitational mass, which is what keeps you stuck to the ground and makes the planets orbit and all that jazz. The other is inertial mass, which is what pushes back on us when we push on something. Currently, we think these are just two facets of the same phenomenon, but there's no solid proof. If it does turn out that these are actually different things, then it may be possible to alter one without altering the other. This is a big stretch, but if everything I've proposed here is true, you could do exactly what you propose. Reduce gravitational mass while keeping inertial mass the same, and you could make something so large it would normally become a black hole.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Eintein's general theory of relativity itself postulates that we have no means to distinguish. Indeed, any breakthrough on that would be huge.
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    1 hour ago















1












$begingroup$

There are two kinds of mass. Gravitational mass, which is what keeps you stuck to the ground and makes the planets orbit and all that jazz. The other is inertial mass, which is what pushes back on us when we push on something. Currently, we think these are just two facets of the same phenomenon, but there's no solid proof. If it does turn out that these are actually different things, then it may be possible to alter one without altering the other. This is a big stretch, but if everything I've proposed here is true, you could do exactly what you propose. Reduce gravitational mass while keeping inertial mass the same, and you could make something so large it would normally become a black hole.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Eintein's general theory of relativity itself postulates that we have no means to distinguish. Indeed, any breakthrough on that would be huge.
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    1 hour ago













1












1








1





$begingroup$

There are two kinds of mass. Gravitational mass, which is what keeps you stuck to the ground and makes the planets orbit and all that jazz. The other is inertial mass, which is what pushes back on us when we push on something. Currently, we think these are just two facets of the same phenomenon, but there's no solid proof. If it does turn out that these are actually different things, then it may be possible to alter one without altering the other. This is a big stretch, but if everything I've proposed here is true, you could do exactly what you propose. Reduce gravitational mass while keeping inertial mass the same, and you could make something so large it would normally become a black hole.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$



There are two kinds of mass. Gravitational mass, which is what keeps you stuck to the ground and makes the planets orbit and all that jazz. The other is inertial mass, which is what pushes back on us when we push on something. Currently, we think these are just two facets of the same phenomenon, but there's no solid proof. If it does turn out that these are actually different things, then it may be possible to alter one without altering the other. This is a big stretch, but if everything I've proposed here is true, you could do exactly what you propose. Reduce gravitational mass while keeping inertial mass the same, and you could make something so large it would normally become a black hole.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 2 hours ago









Ryan_LRyan_L

5,047928




5,047928







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Eintein's general theory of relativity itself postulates that we have no means to distinguish. Indeed, any breakthrough on that would be huge.
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    1 hour ago












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Eintein's general theory of relativity itself postulates that we have no means to distinguish. Indeed, any breakthrough on that would be huge.
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    1 hour ago







1




1




$begingroup$
Eintein's general theory of relativity itself postulates that we have no means to distinguish. Indeed, any breakthrough on that would be huge.
$endgroup$
– Renan
1 hour ago




$begingroup$
Eintein's general theory of relativity itself postulates that we have no means to distinguish. Indeed, any breakthrough on that would be huge.
$endgroup$
– Renan
1 hour ago











0












$begingroup$

What you want here is to mask the mass, not get rid of it. Antigrav is what you're after, integrated such that your system shields objects from each other while maintaining their local gravity wells (so you don't end up with the opposite problem of things spontaneously exploding as soon as gravity isn't holding them together).






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Re: the "problem of things spontaneously exploding," you've just invented the Little Doctor, which has its own set of uses.
    $endgroup$
    – thirtythreeforty
    58 mins ago















0












$begingroup$

What you want here is to mask the mass, not get rid of it. Antigrav is what you're after, integrated such that your system shields objects from each other while maintaining their local gravity wells (so you don't end up with the opposite problem of things spontaneously exploding as soon as gravity isn't holding them together).






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Re: the "problem of things spontaneously exploding," you've just invented the Little Doctor, which has its own set of uses.
    $endgroup$
    – thirtythreeforty
    58 mins ago













0












0








0





$begingroup$

What you want here is to mask the mass, not get rid of it. Antigrav is what you're after, integrated such that your system shields objects from each other while maintaining their local gravity wells (so you don't end up with the opposite problem of things spontaneously exploding as soon as gravity isn't holding them together).






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$



What you want here is to mask the mass, not get rid of it. Antigrav is what you're after, integrated such that your system shields objects from each other while maintaining their local gravity wells (so you don't end up with the opposite problem of things spontaneously exploding as soon as gravity isn't holding them together).







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 3 hours ago









G. B. RobinsonG. B. Robinson

2177




2177











  • $begingroup$
    Re: the "problem of things spontaneously exploding," you've just invented the Little Doctor, which has its own set of uses.
    $endgroup$
    – thirtythreeforty
    58 mins ago
















  • $begingroup$
    Re: the "problem of things spontaneously exploding," you've just invented the Little Doctor, which has its own set of uses.
    $endgroup$
    – thirtythreeforty
    58 mins ago















$begingroup$
Re: the "problem of things spontaneously exploding," you've just invented the Little Doctor, which has its own set of uses.
$endgroup$
– thirtythreeforty
58 mins ago




$begingroup$
Re: the "problem of things spontaneously exploding," you've just invented the Little Doctor, which has its own set of uses.
$endgroup$
– thirtythreeforty
58 mins ago

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143133%2fcan-mass-be-shunted-off-into-hyperspace-but-the-matter-remains%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-