[GoC (OP)]

Is it possible for mass to be separate from energy?

[PmbPhy]

Is it possible for mass to be separate from energy?

Yes. In fact you can read about it in my paper I wrote. This paper is published in an Indian journal. I forgot which one. It's also in a book. See http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.0687

Equation 16 shows that the passive gravitational mass of a particle moving through a gravitational field is not related to energy at all. Its a function of rest mass, speed of the particle and the gravitational potential. The energy is the time component of the particles 1-form. The two are not equal to each other. They're not even proportional to each other.

[GoC (OP)]

Describe the cause of a gravitational field. Mechanically what causes the field to exist in the presence of mass. And what is a mathematical gizmo? What is its shape and size?

[Colin2B]

.... you can read about it in my paper I wrote. This paper is published in an Indian journal. I forgot which one. It's also in a book. See http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.0687

Very useful paper, thanks

[PmbPhy]

Describe the cause of a gravitational field. Mechanically what causes the field to exist in the presence of mass. And what is a mathematical gizmo? What is its shape and size?

That's is unknown as of yet. All physics can do right now is describe the gravitational field in terms of the stress-energy-momentum (SEM) tensor.

[PmbPhy]

Is it possible for mass to be separate from energy?

Why are you posting this in the New Theories forum? If it's merely a question and not an assertion/theory then you can post it in the Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology forum.  []

[guest39538]

Yes. In fact you can read about it in my paper I wrote. This paper is published in an Indian journal. I forgot which one. It's also in a book. See http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.0687

Equation 16 shows that the passive gravitational mass of a particle moving through a gravitational field is not related to energy at all. Its a function of rest mass, speed of the particle and the gravitational potential. The energy is the time component of the particles 1-form. The two are not equal to each other. They're not even proportional to each other.

Really Pete?  no energy no mass, they are related, no mass no work, they are related. Force is a product of energy , no energy no force, no work,

Your paper is wrong if you are suggesting there is no mass /energy relationship.

[GoC (OP)]

Is the motion of the electron cloud related to energy?

[PmbPhy]

Is the motion of the electron cloud related to energy?

What motion are you referring to? The electron cloud is an informal term used to describe the probability of where electrons are around the nucleus of an atom. Such "clouds" are static having no motion that I'm aware of. If there were any motion, perhaps from the motion of the atom itself, then the cloud would still describe the probability of where the electrons are, but now the distribution won't be static.

[guest39538]

Is the motion of the electron cloud related to energy?

No energy no work.  Presently the motion of the electron is hypothetical so I believe , it is not directly observed, it is a simulation programmed by man.

I would personally think the motion of an electron is a direct result of opposite mass and the attraction of energies being the resulting factor in the direction the electron points, maybe,
although I also do not consider an electron is a single particle as such, i consider it is a ''virtual'' electron shell made up of billions of electrons and what science observes when bombarding metal with electrons is an electron shell resisting the same and equal thing. I think the proton emits the electron shell, i think the protons absorb emr like a capacity but release emr at the same rate , creating a surface type field that is mistaken for a separate entity.

I also think we need to define a new word for virtual in the content of something that exists without body, such as energy which ''virtually'' exists, but without body, it certainly has presence that can be felt when converted into force or heat.

un-virtual?

invirtual?

covirtual?

convirtual?  because it converts?

Photons are convirtual particles?

Photons are convertual particles?

I think I like the second spelling the best.

[GoC (OP)]

Is the motion of the electron cloud related to energy?

What motion are you referring to? The electron cloud is an informal term used to describe the probability of where electrons are around the nucleus of an atom. Such "clouds" are static having no motion that I'm aware of. If there were any motion, perhaps from the motion of the atom itself, then the cloud would still describe the probability of where the electrons are, but now the distribution won't be static.

Exactly!

[PmbPhy]

Is the motion of the electron cloud related to energy?

What motion are you referring to? The electron cloud is an informal term used to describe the probability of where electrons are around the nucleus of an atom. Such "clouds" are static having no motion that I'm aware of. If there were any motion, perhaps from the motion of the atom itself, then the cloud would still describe the probability of where the electrons are, but now the distribution won't be static.

Exactly!

Yay! We're on the same page.

[Colin2B]

Electrons or Electron clouds orbit the nucleus of atoms, in my opinion

I think it is best to keep the term orbit for planetary systems where the 'particles' circulate around a nucleus in a regular pattern.
If we look at electron orbitals (the electron cloud) they have a variety of shapes, sphere, donut, bumbell lobes, and combinations of these. All we can say is that they describe a zone where the electron(s) are most likely to be found.

Think about it, right hand rule

Ok, thought about it.
Right hand rule relative to what?
The nucleus doesn't have an axis like earth.
And anyway, what's wrong with the left hand rule?

[guest39538]

A convertual photon has the ability of coldheat, the unusual ability to induce large amounts of heat and then return to space temperature in a short amount of time.

[GoC (OP)]

If we look at electron orbitals (the electron cloud) they have a variety of shapes, sphere, donut, bumbell lobes, and combinations of these. All we can say is that they describe a zone where the electron(s) are most likely to be found.

Do we visualize it as a cloud because of the electron speed?

[Colin2B]

Do we visualize it as a cloud because of the electron speed?

No, but because of it's probability distribution.

[PmbPhy]

Yes. In fact you can read about it in my paper I wrote. This paper is published in an Indian journal. I forgot which one. It's also in a book. See http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.0687

Equation 16 shows that the passive gravitational mass of a particle moving through a gravitational field is not related to energy at all. Its a function of rest mass, speed of the particle and the gravitational potential. The energy is the time component of the particles 1-form. The two are not equal to each other. They're not even proportional to each other.

Really Pete?  no energy no mass, they are related, no mass no work, they are related. Force is a product of energy , no energy no force, no work,

Your paper is wrong if you are suggesting there is no mass /energy relationship.

There's nothing wrong with my paper. It's merely you misunderstanding of what I said here is what is wrong. You incorrectly took a specific example and generalized it and did so incorrectly.

[Phractality]

I just now described my model in the thread, What is the True Nature of Space?

In my model, a fundamental particle consists of two or more photons locked in orbit around one another. When those photons were propagating in straight lines, they had a certain amount of energy and momentum. Locking them in orbit around one another converts that energy to the rest mass of a particle. In the reference frame centered on the particle, the orbiting photons' momenta are equal and opposite on opposite sides of their orbits, so the particle has zero momentum in that reference frame.

In a different reference frame, the particle does have momentum, and its energy is greater. This is so because accelerating the particle accelerates the photon on one side while decelerating the photon on the opposite side. For small velocities, integrating that effect over the period of the photons' orbits will give you the special theory of relativity and E = mc².

[GoC (OP)]

We cannot claim one subjective model over another subjective model unless one model does not follow mathematics.