0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Thebox on 03/08/2017 22:31:35Then what is mass if not charge? Charge is seemingly the only thing it can be. Utter nonsense.It would make just as much sense to say "stupidity is seemingly the only thing it can be. "
Then what is mass if not charge? Charge is seemingly the only thing it can be.
Quote from: Thebox on 04/08/2017 20:54:01Another science forum is saying that 1 is not equal to 1 Nobody said that did they.The closest was when I said 1 isn't 1800
Another science forum is saying that 1 is not equal to 1
1 apple is not 1 grape.Did you not understand that?
Nothing as such, you clearly have not understand it. Mass is measured in essence on a set of scales, i.e kg
I believe mass is the measurement of action rather than the possible cause of action.Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, i.e the opposite actions of charge have the reaction of giving a body mass.
There is no other answer, charge is the cause of mass and gravity. q1+q2=N, N is ostensible in my objective opinion.
The electrodynamics of moving bodies is also the electrodynamics of gravity. An electrostatic field can produce space time curvature, i.e see electrostatic water displacement.
1 of 1.6726219 × 10-27 kilograms = 1 of +1e 1 of 9.10938356 × 10-31 kilograms =1 of -e
Light is massless and has no charge unlike a rock that has charge and mass, but we dont know what the mass really is, so is the mass = charge and the charge is directly proportional to the mass? Please help I am learning a lot about charge and mass etc.
Quote from: Thebox on 12/08/2017 17:15:03Nothing as such, you clearly have not understand it. Mass is measured in essence on a set of scales, i.e kgIt can also be measured by its inertia (i.e. the force required to accelerate an object).QuoteI believe mass is the measurement of action rather than the possible cause of action.Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, i.e the opposite actions of charge have the reaction of giving a body mass.I'm not sure what you even mean by "action". What does "action of charge" mean?QuoteThere is no other answer, charge is the cause of mass and gravity. q1+q2=N, N is ostensible in my objective opinion.Uncharged, massive neutrinos have refuted this, as I've already explained. The inability to create a gravitational dipole by creating an electric dipole has refuted this. Light not bending in electromagnetic fields has refuted this. Tauons, muons, electrons and antiprotons all having identical net and gross electric charges yet having very different masses refutes this.QuoteThe electrodynamics of moving bodies is also the electrodynamics of gravity. An electrostatic field can produce space time curvature, i.e see electrostatic water displacement. Give us a link to even a single study that has shown space-time warping due to an electrostatic field.Quote from: Thebox on 12/08/2017 17:24:161 of 1.6726219 × 10-27 kilograms = 1 of +1e 1 of 9.10938356 × 10-31 kilograms =1 of -eIf that was true, then a positron (the antiparticle counterpart to the electron) would have a mass equal to a proton, since they both have a charge of +1. Antiprotons would then have a mass equal to electrons, since they both have -1 charge. Instead, antiprotons have equal mass to protons and positrons equal mass to electrons. Again, there is no relationship between magnitude of charge and magnitude of mass.
What does "action of charge" mean?
Uncharged, massive neutrinos have refuted this, as I've already explained. The inability to create a gravitational dipole by creating an electric dipole has refuted this. Light not bending in electromagnetic fields has refuted this. Tauons, muons, electrons and antiprotons all having identical net and gross electric charges yet having very different masses refutes this.
Give us a link to even a single study that has shown space-time warping due to an electrostatic field.
If that was true, then a positron (the antiparticle counterpart to the electron) would have a mass equal to a proton, since they both have a charge of +1. Antiprotons would then have a mass equal to electrons, since they both have -1 charge. Instead, antiprotons have equal mass to protons and positrons equal mass to electrons. Again, there is no relationship between magnitude of charge and magnitude of mass.
Quote from: Thebox on 30/07/2017 01:04:57Light is massless and has no charge unlike a rock that has charge and mass, but we dont know what the mass really is, so is the mass = charge and the charge is directly proportional to the mass? Please help I am learning a lot about charge and mass etc.Yes there may be a relationship between mass and charge.The only exception we often deal with is neutrino's, the only particle as far we believe that has a very small mass, vanishingly small in fact, but is believed to have zero charge. Whether this is true in nature, may be a matter of theory, for instance, maybe the neutrino equally has a vanishingly small but non-zero charge with respect to its mass? I certainly believe this is possible. Mass has also shown to be related to Weyl invariance Which is by definition, the electromagnetic Planck charge equal to some definition of a charge in terms of its mass. In the past if my memory serves me right, charged massless particles was once predicted in the standard model from Yukawa physics, but was later ruled out.More recently, Weyl fermions have been discovered which may lead the way to creating electrons ''without mass.'' Equally, the Weyl fermion is allowed to have a charge yet, will remain massless.
a metric tensor is a type of function which takes as input a pair of tangent vectors v and w at a point of a surface (or higher dimensional differentiable manifold) and produces a real number scalar g(v, w) in a way that generalizes many of the familiar properties of the dot product of vectors in Euclidean space. In the same way as a dot product, metric tensors are used to define the length of and angle between tangent vectors.
Inertia is the resistance to acceleration of an object not the force required to accelerate an object.
It means every action has an equal and opposite reaction, the actions of charge is motion i.e likewise charge repulses, opposite charges attract, the resulted action is motion/displacement.
My notion is in it's early stages, I am quite sure in ''time'' I will have the answers that out premise the refute.
Obvious the premise is hypothetical at this stage, maybe even Psuedo, but my thoughts are based on water displacement by an electrical field, the field is not displacing the water, it is displacing the likewise charge of the water, it is the waters field that curves. I believe there is some merit in my thoughts on this.
Entropy is a variate, loss and gain rate determined by the ''product'', I am not even sure anti protons are even real particles. (they sound of the imagination). I will research this and get back to you on that.
I thought of another one as well: your model does not explain relativistic mass gain. As an object's velocity increases, so does its mass. The charge on the object, however, does not increase. How do you explain that?
I can answer this one,Relativistic mass gain is badly misinterpreted. This one is quite easy to answer. An object in motion that increases in speed gains more Newtons of force that is interpreted as relative mass. The gain is speed not mass that gives a greater pE on impact of the object. An object that is at a constant speed impacts at a constant relative mass. Science has far too many things that mean the same thing. For example if I lift an apple off the ground, I have gained height which is converted into acceleration when I drop the apple. The apple as not gained more mass or kinetic energy , it has gained speed and acceleration which equates to F=ma² and Newtons of force and potential energy (pE) of impact. speed equals more force , not more mass.
The only exception we often deal with is neutrino's, the only particle as far we believe that has a very small mass, vanishingly small in fact, but is believed to have zero charge. Whether this is true in nature, may be a matter of theory, for instance, maybe the neutrino equally has a vanishingly small but non-zero charge with respect to its mass? I certainly believe this is possible.
neutrino's
Quote from: Bored chemist on 12/08/2017 20:50:241 apple is not 1 grape.Did you not understand that?A completely different context to the discussion and not even a close comparison. I can see you are not willing to have a serious discussion. I will await somebody who is willing to have a meaningful discussion. 1=1 always
Quote from: Thebox on 12/08/2017 22:35:12Quote from: Bored chemist on 12/08/2017 20:50:241 apple is not 1 grape.Did you not understand that?A completely different context to the discussion and not even a close comparison. I can see you are not willing to have a serious discussion. I will await somebody who is willing to have a meaningful discussion. 1=1 always And 1 proton is not 1 positron.They have the same charge, but they have different masses. So mass clearly isn't the same thing as charge.
Quote from: Dubbelosix on 12/08/2017 23:22:16neutrino'sThis morning I have been looking at Neutrinos. Could you please provide some evidence of a Neutrino existence as seemingly I can't find any?
I am sorry but I do not believe in all these sub-atomic particles at this time. A positron means very little to me and sounds of the imagination rather than something factual. I personally think a lot of these sub-atomic particles are made up and not real . Please provide me with some evidence of a positron other than words alone?
Soon after, Carl D. Anderson andVictor Hess in 1932 discovered the positron by studying cosmic rays interactingwith a lead plate in the presence of a magnetic field (Nobelprize.org, 1936).Particles, which had the same mass as electrons, were emitted but they movedtoward the negatively charged plate in the magnetic field; thus the particles had tobe positively charged.
added- Ok , they do not have different masses, you obviously can not weigh it , so who defines its mass?
Quote from: Thebox on 13/08/2017 11:34:20Quote from: Dubbelosix on 12/08/2017 23:22:16neutrino'sThis morning I have been looking at Neutrinos. Could you please provide some evidence of a Neutrino existence as seemingly I can't find any?You didn't look very hard:Demonstration of Communication using Neutrinos: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.2847.pdfWorld's Smallest Neutrino Detector observes elusive Interactions of Particles: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170803141114.htmNeutrino Detectors: https://www.windows2universe.org/sun/Solar_interior/Nuclear_Reactions/Neutrinos/detectors.html]=https://www.windows2universe.org/sun/Solar_interior/Nuclear_Reactions/Neutrinos/detectors.html]https://www.windows2universe.org/sun/Solar_interior/Nuclear_Reactions/Neutrinos/detectors.htmlNeutrino Detector: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_detectorCowan-Reines Neutrino Experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowan%E2%80%93Reines_neutrino_experimentQuote from: Thebox on 13/08/2017 12:34:21I am sorry but I do not believe in all these sub-atomic particles at this time. A positron means very little to me and sounds of the imagination rather than something factual. I personally think a lot of these sub-atomic particles are made up and not real . Please provide me with some evidence of a positron other than words alone?You must not research particle physics much at all. Positrons are very well established, created on a regular basis by nuclear decay and particle accelerators.CERN Scientists Create Antihydrogen Atoms: http://www.sci-news.com/physics/science-cern-antihydrogen-atoms-01706.html (Antihydrogen consists of a positron and an antiproton).Irene Joliot-Curie, Nobel Laureate in Artificial Radioactivity: https://www.chem.fsu.edu/~gilmer/PDFs/Ch%202_Irene_Curie_Penny_Gilmer_6-19-11_pg_mh.pdf. On page 8, it says:Quote Soon after, Carl D. Anderson andVictor Hess in 1932 discovered the positron by studying cosmic rays interactingwith a lead plate in the presence of a magnetic field (Nobelprize.org, 1936).Particles, which had the same mass as electrons, were emitted but they movedtoward the negatively charged plate in the magnetic field; thus the particles had tobe positively charged.Positron: Experimental clues and discovery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron#Experimental_clues_and_discoveryQuoteadded- Ok , they do not have different masses, you obviously can not weigh it , so who defines its mass?You don't have to weigh a particle with a scale in order to find its mass. Here is how it can be done: https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1209If you have to reject the existence and properties of particles which have been detected and experimented with by scientists for decades in order to make your hypothesis work, then your hypothesis is broken.
One of your links failed to load.
So do Neutrinos behave anything like a piece of dust? A piece of dust is seemingly attracted to things, maybe the attraction of a Neutrino falling to the ground is different than gravity? Maybe it is like dust....
Quote from: Thebox on 13/08/2017 17:40:56One of your links failed to load.Which?QuoteSo do Neutrinos behave anything like a piece of dust? A piece of dust is seemingly attracted to things, maybe the attraction of a Neutrino falling to the ground is different than gravity? Maybe it is like dust....Dust is attracted to things by static electricity. This can happen because dust contains electric charges in itself that allow it to be polarized. Neutrinos do not have these internal charges and so cannot be attracted by static electricity.
I am sorry but I do not believe in all these sub-atomic particles at this time. A positron means very little to me and sounds of the imagination rather than something factual. I personally think a lot of these sub-atomic particles are made up and not real . Please provide me with some evidence of a positron other than words alone? added- Ok , they do not have different masses, you obviously can not weigh it , so who defines its mass?
Quote from: Thebox on 13/08/2017 12:34:21I am sorry but I do not believe in all these sub-atomic particles at this time. A positron means very little to me and sounds of the imagination rather than something factual. I personally think a lot of these sub-atomic particles are made up and not real . Please provide me with some evidence of a positron other than words alone? added- Ok , they do not have different masses, you obviously can not weigh it , so who defines its mass?OKHow about a video of both.//www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-uNtC426R4The radius of curvature of the tracks is a measure of the mass.