Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: jerrygg38 on 16/02/2020 13:18:45
-
Naked 2.16.20 9 AM
What is the relationship between mass and charge?
From 1981-3 I started my study of the physics of the universe. Initially I used a simple calculator to study the relationship between the constants of the universe. From this study it became evident that to a reasonable approximation
Equation 1: G = 16 pi e Uo/ (137.036)^3
This was for the MKS system. I then studied many conversion formulas to see what would be the best fit to relate mas in Kilograms and charge in coulombs.
The most likely solution which I called the sister one solution was that for units
Mass M = Charge Q x Light Speed x constant
From my early analysis mass and charge were sister properties who were related by the speed of light C. From that I wrote my hydrogen atom Bohr orbit equation for the expansion of the early hydrogen atom over time. It started at near zero size and became 5.29178E-11 meters today.
The result was a velocity of the Bohr Orbit of 1.21667E-28 meters per second.
This gives us a time of 13.78 billion years after the big bang.
The simple electrical force equations I used was
Equation 2: G Mh Mh / RR = [2 Uo (QC/ 137.036) [4 pi Vb*] Cosine 30 degrees]/ RR
On the left side of the equation is the gravitational force between two hydrogen atoms at a distance R apart. On the right side of the equation is an electrical attraction caused by the interaction of the electron in the first Bohr orbit at a speed of C/137.036 and the expansion of the orbit producing a current flow of 4 pi Vb* where Vb* is the velocity of the Bohr orbit expansion.
The attraction is not a pure DC type attraction. The electron is spinning around the proton causing an AC spherical type wave. At the same time the Bohr orbit is expanding with a very slow moving AC type wave. This causes a phase angle to be requited. The 30 degree phase angle is a most likely answer which is common to many electrical problems. At the same time it matches the astronomer’s answer of around 13.8 billion years.
Equation one for the MKS system is not valid for any other system unless we change the constants. This leads some to question the validity of the mass to charge unit conversions where the units of mass equals charge times meters per second. That is a good question for sure. Equation two is a four unit equation so it should always be valid in all systems of measurement.
The question is under what conditions would equation one be valid?
The true equation is equation 2. Let us solve for Mh in terms of Q. All the numbers form a constant. The velocity Vb* is C/ Constant A therefore we can use C/ Constant A to represent Vb*
We then get
Equation 3: G Mh Mh = Uo Q Q CC (Constant X)
Therefore Mh = Q C (Uo Constant X /G)^0.5
Equation 4: Mh = QC (Constant D)
As long as Uo and G have identical units in any system, the answers will be true. So any Sister solution in which Uo and G do not have the same units is invalid.
I did not realize this in 1981 when I studied many different conversions. In fact I just realized this today. Therefore as long as Uo and G track each other over time, my Sister One conversion is valid.
Does mass equal charge times the velocity of light? Mass and charge velocity are sister properties. We have mass and we have charge, two properties that are related by the speed of light C. They are related to each other by the force equation.
Although I put equation 2 in my books, I never realized that the variations of the constants of the universe over time and or distance was only valid if the gravitational constant and the electrical permeability constant tracked each other. They do not have to be pure constants but the ratio of the two must track as meters change and the time clock changes as well.
-
What is the relationship between mass and charge?
There isn't one.
A neutron has roughly the same mass as a proton, but no charge
A positron has the same charge as a proton but only about 1/1800 times the mass.
The rest of your post is mainly an illustration of numerology, with a side order of not doing dimensional analysis.
-
dimensional analysis
I can strongly recommend dimensional analysis - it picks up many errors that you don't find by just multiplying and dividing numbers.
For example, 3 apples x 2 oranges does not equal 6 aardvarks
Equation 1: G = 16 pi e Uo/ (137.036)^3
I don't have time to do it properly, but here is a start:
- G: I assume this is Newton's gravitational constant? 6.67430×10−11 m3⋅kg−1⋅s−2
- The units are the bit on the end; it looks complicated, but its just as important as the number itself (perhaps more so!)
- See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
- 16 and Pi are dimensionless numbers
- e is the charge on the electron, −1.602176634×10−19 Coulombs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
- I assume Uo is intended to be μ0 = 1.25663706212×10−6 H/m?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability
- I assume that 1/137.036 is intended to be the fine structure constant? This is a dimensionless ratio.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant
A dimensional analysis checks that the units on the right-hand side are the same as the units on the left-hand side.
- The left-hand side has m3, but the right-hand side has m-1. A rather severe mismatch
- The left-hand side has kg−1, but the right-hand side has no kg
- The left-hand side has s−2, but the right-hand side has no seconds
- The right-hand side has Henrys, but the left-hand side has no Henrys
- The right-hand side has Coulombs, but the left-hand side has no Coulombs
So the dimensions are a total mismatch, which means that the numbers have no meaning whatsoever.
- You are comparing apples and oranges.
- And you have derived an Aardvark
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
-
One relationship between charge and mass, based on the preponderance of natural data, is positive charge appears to prefer to merge with the heavy mass; proton. The negative charge prefers to merge with the lessor mass; electron. There is more of these two change-mass configurations in the universe, than the alternative, where charge-mass is reversed.
This makes positive charge slightly different from negative charge at the level of mass and possibly gravity.. This observation is based on the preponderance of natural data, and not on opinion and theory. Look at the data yourself and weigh the each alternative.
-
One relationship between charge and mass, based on the preponderance of natural data, is positive charge appears to prefer to merge with the heavy mass; proton. The negative charge prefers to merge with the lessor mass; electron. There is more of these two change-mass configurations in the universe, than the alternative, where charge-mass is reversed.
This makes positive charge slightly different from negative charge at the level of mass and possibly gravity.. This observation is based on the preponderance of natural data, and not on opinion and theory. Look at the data yourself and weigh the each alternative.
That's just an odd aspect of our universe. There's not much antimatter. (thankfully)
-
Naked 2.16.20 4 pm
Bored Chemist says:
There isn't one. (no relationship between charge and mass)
A neutron has roughly the same mass as a proton, but no charge
A positron has the same charge as a proton but only about 1/1800 times the mass.
GG: A neutron contains 8.50793E43 bipolar dot-waves. Half are positive dot-waves and half are negative dot-waves. This gives us a net charge of zero.
The little positron is similar to an electron. Which has 4.62718E40 positive dot-waves which have a charge of 3.47119E-60 coulombs and a mass of 1.96867E-71 kilo0grams.
If we know the charge and mass of any particle we can calculate readily the number of positive, negative, and bipolar dot-waves within it.
The dot-waves are the basic structure of everything. You look at the total structure of total mass and total charge. You do not look at what makes up that structure. Everything consists of dot-waves. The difference between particles and photons is geometry. Particles tend to have spherical shapes while photons had planar shapes and appear massless but the all have equivalent mass.
-
Evan_au responds
Quote
Equation 1: G = 16 pi e Uo/ (137.036)^3
I don't have time to do it properly, but here is a start:
- G: I assume this is Newton's gravitational constant? 6.67430×10−11 m3⋅kg−1⋅s−2
- The units are the bit on the end; it looks complicated, but its just as important as the number itself (perhaps more so!)
- See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
GG: You are concerned with the exact measured number while I am looking for ideal numbers that involve 2, 4, pi, e=2.71828, 137.036, etc.
Evan: - 16 and Pi are dimensionless numbers
GG: That is correct
- e is the charge on the electron, −1.602176634×10−19 Coulombs
GG: I am sorry to have confused you. In my book I specify e= 2.71828 and eo is the electrical permittivity constant and pi= 3.14159. For the charge of an electron I use Q.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
Evan: - I assume Uo is intended to be μ0 = 1.25663706212×10−6 H/m?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability
GG: Yes.
- I assume that 1/137.036 is intended to be the fine structure constant? This is a dimensionless ratio.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant
GG: Yes.
Evan: A dimensional analysis checks that the units on the right-hand side are the same as the units on the left-hand side.
- The left-hand side has m3, but the right-hand side has m-1. A rather severe mismatch- The left-hand side has kg−1, but the right-hand side has no kg
- The left-hand side has s−2, but the right-hand side has no seconds
- The right-hand side has Henrys, but the left-hand side has no Henrys
- The right-hand side has Coulombs, but the left-hand side has no Coulombs
So the dimensions are a total mismatch, which means that the numbers have no meaning whatsoever.
- You are comparing apples and oranges.
- And you have derived an Aardvark
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis
GG: Please recheck your work. I should have specified in the above equation that e was a number. As far as the units are concerned the above equation is a standard physics equation used in electrical engineering courses. In addition it was checked by my fellow Sperry Engineers, Physicists, and mathematicians who reviewed my work in their spare time which was plenty since often all they had to do was read newspapers or do crossword puzzles during down times as they awaited new work.
In general they were very high paid very sharp people.
-
One relationship between charge and mass, based on the preponderance of natural data, is positive charge appears to prefer to merge with the heavy mass; proton. The negative charge prefers to merge with the lessor mass; electron. There is more of these two change-mass configurations in the universe, than the alternative, where charge-mass is reversed.
Since when did charge merge with anything? Protons and electrons automatically come with their charge. Also, the W bosons are both much more massive than either the proton or the neutron, but they come in either positively or negatively-charged forms.
Equation one for the MKS system is not valid for any other system unless we change the constants.
Which means the equation is wrong. You don't have to change the constants to get the right answer between measurement systems in truly accurate equations such as the kinetic energy equation. It is 0.5mv2. This works for any measurement system without having to change the constants. Here is an example:
For metric:
Ek = (0.5) x (1 kilogram) x (100 meters per second)2
Ek = 0.5 x 1 x 10,000
Ek = 0.5 x 10,000
Ek = 5,000 joules
For imperial:
Ek = (0.5) x (0.0685218 slugs) x (328.084 feet per second)2
Ek = 0.5 x 0.0685218 x 107,639.111
Ek = 0.0342609 x 107,639.111
Ek = 3687.81 foot-pounds
Since 1 joules equals 0.737562 foot-pounds, multiplying 5,000 joules by 0.737562 should give the same result as calculated in the Imperial equation. And, indeed, 5,000 x 0.737562 = 3,687.81 foot-pounds. So the equation gives the same result without having to change either of the constants (the 0.5 and the exponent of 2).
-
One relationship between charge and mass, based on the preponderance of natural data, is positive charge appears to prefer to merge with the heavy mass; proton. The negative charge prefers to merge with the lessor mass; electron. There is more of these two change-mass configurations in the universe, than the alternative, where charge-mass is reversed.
Since when did charge merge with anything? Protons and electrons automatically come with their charge. Also, the W bosons are both much more massive than either the proton or the neutron, but they come in either positively or negatively-charged forms.
This comes back to the phase diagram problem, and how particle accelerator experiments are conducted at low pressure. This experimental observation, which you kindly shared, is also an artifact of the use of extreme magnetism, to provide the energy for the high energy particles. These experimental conditions set the stage so change and magnetism come first. Magnetism is the big dog in these experiments and will lead the creation of phases. It is like adding carbon to the a phase diagram for iron; carbon steel.
At the extreme pressures of a neutron star, which is small compared to the singularity of the BB, charge is not a viable phase or protons and electrons would remain. The particles are too close so charges cancel. The result is more of a neutral mass phase, with whispers of reemerging charge at the surface, where a phase boundary appears, due to less pressure.
In nature, extreme pressure is generated by gravity. Gravity provides pressure, General Relativity considerations, and has an association to mass. Mass is the big dog. Accelerator experiments lead with the EM force; charge and magnetism. This provides charge, magnetism and Special Relativity, for low pressure phases where space and space-time are more expanded.
Mass according to Special Relativity cannot go the speed of light. Mass is a precondition, in terms of inertial reference. Mass provides a type of material capacitance, needed to perpetuate inertial reference. In the case of mass, GR, instead of velocity and SR, regulate references close to C.
Charge also does not travel at the speed of light. In copper wires current flows at about 95% of the speed of light. Charge can go even faster in particle accelerators. It reference is more regulated by SR, which comes into the universe after space-time opens up around †he mass anchor.
-
Kryptid says:Which means the equation is wrong. You don't have to change the constants to get the right answer between measurement systems in truly accurate equations such as the kinetic energy equation. It is 0.5mv2. This works for any measurement system without having to change the constants. Here is an example:
For metric:
Ek = (0.5) x (1 kilogram) x (100 meters per second)2
Ek = 0.5 x 1 x 10,000
Ek = 0.5 x 10,000
Ek = 5,000 joules
For imperial:
Ek = (0.5) x (0.0685218 slugs) x (328.084 feet per second)2
Ek = 0.5 x 0.0685218 x 107,639.111
Ek = 0.0342609 x 107,639.111
Ek = 3687.81 foot-pounds
Since 1 joules equals 0.737562 foot-pounds, multiplying 5,000 joules by 0.737562 should give the same result as calculated in the Imperial equation. And, indeed, 5,000 x 0.737562 = 3,687.81 foot-pounds. So the equation gives the same result without having to change either of the constants (the 0.5 and the exponent of 2).
GG: Equation 1 is a best fit three unit equation for the MKS system. You have to use the more complex general equation 2 which contains four units kilograms,coulombs, meters, and seconds. It is this equation I use for my calculations.
-
For example, 3 apples x 2 oranges does not equal 6 aardvarks
You have obviously never bartered in an African market. It's a reasonable starting position, though you usually get beaten down to one aardvark steak if the seller is awake.
-
A neutron contains 8.50793E43 bipolar dot-waves.
Do you even science?
-
Please recheck your work
I checked it.
He's correct.
Your units don't tally, so your equation is nonsense.
I should have specified in the above equation that e was a number.
It doesn't matter, partly because a number has no units, but mainly because the problems are so big.
the above equation is a standard physics equation
No it is not.
-
GG: Equation 1 is a best fit three unit equation for the MKS system. You have to use the more complex general equation 2 which contains four units kilograms,coulombs, meters, and seconds. It is this equation I use for my calculations.
Okay, let's see what the equation says then.
Left side:
((G)(MH)(MH))/r2
((6.6743 x 10-11)(1.6735575 x 10-27)(1.6735575 x 10-27))/(7.4 x 10-11)2
(1.1169825 x 10-37)(1.6735575 x 10-27))/(7.4 x 10-11)2
(1.8693344 x 10-64)/(7.4 x 10-11)2
(1.8693344 x 10-64)/(5.476 x 10-21)
= 3.4136859 x 10-44
Right side:
((2)(μ0)((Qc)/137.036))(4)(pi)(Vb*)(cos 30o))/r2
((2)(1.25663706212 x 10-6)((1.602176634 x 10-19)(299,792,458)/137.036))(4)(3.14159)(1.21667 x 10-28)(cos 30o))/(7.4 x 10-11)2
((2.51327412424 x 10-6)((1.602176634 x 10-19)(299,792,458)/137.036))(4)(3.14159)(1.21667 x 10-28)(cos 30o))/(7.4 x 10-11)2
((2.51327412424 x 10-6)((4.8032047 x 10-11)/137.036))(4)(3.14159)(1.21667 x 10-28)(cos 30o))/(7.4 x 10-11)2
((2.51327412424 x 10-6)(3.5050678 x 10-13)(4)(3.14159)(1.21667 x 10-28)(cos 30o))/(7.4 x 10-11)2
((8.8091962 x 10-19)(4)(3.14159)(1.21667 x 10-28)(cos 30o))/(7.4 x 10-11)2
((3.5236785 x 10-18)(3.14159)(1.21667 x 10-28)(cos 30o))/(7.4 x 10-11)2
((1.1069962 x 10-17)(1.21667 x 10-28)(cos 30o))/(7.4 x 10-11)2
((1.3468491 x 10-45)(cos 30o))/(7.4 x 10-11)2
((1.3468491 x 10-45)(0.86602540378))/(7.4 x 10-11)2
(1.1664055 x 10-45)/(7.4 x 10-11)2
(1.1664055 x 10-45)/(5.476 x 10-21)
= 2.130032 x 10-25
Those two numbers are very different from each other. It's entirely possible that I made a math error. If so, see if you can find it and tell me what is.
-
To Kryptid
I checked your calculation. The Vb* term should have charge Q in front of it. When you multiply suing Q, you get 3.41268E-44 on the right side. Since I used 6.67223E-11 for G (Your number probably better) my upper equation would be 3.412627E-44. Your G would change my Vb* slightly.
Anyway thanks for your effort. In public school I won the math medal but now I am not as good as I used to be. And on the 28 I have to have cataract surgery so one eye is blurry.
-
To Kryptid
I checked your calculation. The Vb* term should have charge Q in front of it. When you multiply suing Q, you get 3.41268E-44 on the right side. Since I used 6.67223E-11 for G (Your number probably better) my upper equation would be 3.412627E-44. Your G would change my Vb* slightly.
Anyway thanks for your effort. In public school I won the math medal but now I am not as good as I used to be. And on the 28 I have to have cataract surgery so one eye is blurry.
I see that you are correct. When I come back later, I plan to redo the calculations in imperial units and see if they still match up.
-
The positive charge of the universe is predominately associated with the heavier mass; proton. The negative charge is associated with the lighter mass; electron. In nature, when a particular product or products are in a superabundance, this is not due to coincidence. Rather it can be traced to energy and entropy considerations.
A different observation that tells us something about the relationship between mass and charge is, although a positron and election will easily annihilate, a proton and electron rarely do. Both systems have a negative charge and a positive charge, yet both do not annihilate.
The main difference is the large mass of the proton, appears to lower the free energy of the electron-proton system, so the potential for annihilation is much less. If we attach a smaller mass to the positive charge of the proton; form a positron, and use the same election, we get POOF! This suggest the potential was made higher by lowering the mass.
When the positive charge is in the form of a proton, the uncertainty principle appears to be in affect for the election-proton system. When the positive charge is in the form of the positron, the uncertainty principle is not fully in affect. Things become more certain and they find each other; annihilation.
One explanation is the proton and electron are in two difference references, due to the speed of the election and the slowness of the proton. The electron has potential, as Special Relativity, thereby altering its reference relative the slower proton. When we have the positron and election, both with lower mass, both have similar speed and SR potential, and thereby occupy very similar references, so they can find each other with more certainty.
One impact of the heavier mass of the proton is to change the reference of the positive charge, relative to the negative charge of the electron. This allows entropy to be maximized. In other words this keeps the material expanded as nuclei and election clouds, so gravitational pressure, caused by mass, can increase entropy via phase changes.
-
Kryptid
I see that you are correct. When I come back later, I plan to redo the calculations in imperial units and see if they still match up.
GG: I believe so even though I never heard of imperial units until this latest discussion this year. Over 50 years ago we studied slugs and feet but mostly meters and kilograms.
-
I never heard of imperial units until this latest discussion this year. Over 50 years ago we studied slugs and feet
Slugs and feet are imperial units.
-
They were called British Units in my physics books. Oh well.
-
They were called British Units in my physics books. Oh well.
It may have escaped your notice, but the British Empire used them. Some bits- notably the USA still do.
-
It may have escaped your notice, but the British Empire used them. Some bits- notably the USA still do.
GG: It was so long ago I hardly remember anything from the past. Luckily I can still find my way to the bathroom.
-
The left side is easy enough to convert. The answer is in newtons and the imperial unit of force is the pound-force. The conversion factor is 1 lbf = 4.448222 N, so 3.4136859 x 10-44 N equals 7.67427 x 10-45 lbf.
Here’s the conversion for the right side:
μ0 = 2.8250387 x 10-7 (slug•ft2/s2•A2)/ft
Q = 1.602176634 x 10-19 C (the same as in metric)
c = 983,571,056.43 feet per second
Vb* = 3.9916996028 x 10-28 feet per second
r = 2.4278216 x 10-10
And here is the math for the right side:
=((2)(μ0)((Qc)/137.036))(4)(pi)(Q)(Vb*)(cos 30o))/r2
=((2)(2.8250387 x 10-7)(((1.602176634 x 10-19)(983,571,056.43))/137.036))(4)(1.602176634 x 10-19)(3.9916996028 x 10-28)(cos 30o))/((2.4278216 x 10-10)2)
=((5.6500774 x 10-7)(((1.602176634 x 10-19)(983,571,056.43))/137.036))(4)(1.602176634 x 10-19)(3.9916996028 x 10-28)(cos 30o))/((2.4278216 x 10-10)2)
=((5.6500774 x 10-7)((1.575854564 x 10-10)/137.036))(4)(1.602176634 x 10-19)(3.9916996028 x 10-28)(cos 30o))/((2.4278216 x 10-10)2)
=((5.6500774 x 10-7)(1.14995663 x 10-12)(4)(1.602176634 x 10-19)(3.9916996028 x 10-28)(cos 30o))/((2.4278216 x 10-10)2)
=((6.497343966 x 10-19)(4)(1.602176634 x 10-19)(3.9916996028 x 10-28)(cos 30o))/((2.4278216 x 10-10)2)
=((2.598937586 x 10-18)(1.602176634 x 10-19)(3.9916996028 x 10-28)(cos 30o))/((2.4278216 x 10-10)2)
=((4.16395707 x 10-37)(3.9916996028 x 10-28)(cos 30o))/((2.4278216 x 10-10)2)
=((1.66212658 x 10-64)(cos 30o))/((2.4278216 x 10-10)2)
=((1.66212658 x 10-64)(0.8660254))/((2.4278216 x 10-10)2)
=(1.4394438362 x 10-64)/((2.4278216 x 10-10)2)
=(1.4394438362 x 10-64)/(5.8943177214 x 10-20)
=2.4420873 x 10-45
I'm surprised that they are on the same order of magnitude, but the first value is still more than three times larger than this one (assuming I didn't make any errors). So still no match.
Oh, by the way, the metric unit for angular measurement is the radian, not the degree. In this particular case, it doesn't matter because the cosine of either is the same number. Under other circumstances, it would indeed be important to get it right.
-
To Kryptid
The top equation is 7.67427E-45 according to your calculations
The bottom equation is 2.44207873E-45 according to your calculations
The ratio is 3.142515 now pi = 3.14159
The pi shows in the equation but is missing in your calculation
The second number should be 7.67204E-45
This is an error of 0.029 percent from the first number. I am glad that you were able to supply all the numbers. Unfortunately I threw out my 50 year old college physics book a little over a year ago. It had the slugs and feet conversion factors. I went to Barnes and Noble looking for a physics book but they did not have a good book like I had long ago. The internet confuses me. So you have provided the necessary conversions. I am also having some trouble doing all the multiplications you did. I used to proof read my Professor/ Sperry Boss's books. I always found the errors. But I am not as good as I used to be.
-
To Kryptid
The top equation is 7.67427E-45 according to your calculations
The bottom equation is 2.44207873E-45 according to your calculations
The ratio is 3.142515 now pi = 3.14159
The pi shows in the equation but is missing in your calculation
The second number should be 7.67204E-45
This is an error of 0.029 percent from the first number.
You're right, I did make a mistake. Interesting how it matched up so well.
-
Kryptid said
You're right, I did make a mistake. Interesting how it matched up so well.
GG: Thanks for your effort. You did a good job matching the MKS and British systems. The equation is a standard type force equation so it should work in any system although I never thought of such things.
-
Mass M = Charge Q x Light Speed x constant
By observation, no; it is not.
The charge of a proton, an antimuon, a +ve pion, and a positron are all the same.
The masses are all different.
-
Bored Chemist says:
By observation, no; it is not.
The charge of a proton, an antimuon, a +ve pion, and a positron are all the same.
The masses are all different.
GG: Yes they have different masses. It is necessary to calculate how many positive, negative and bipolar dot-waves are in each particle. At the dot-wave level the charge and the mass are related by a constant which depends upon the system of units you are in. For the MKS system a dot-wave has a mass of 1.96867E-71 kilograms and a charge of 3.47119E-60 Coulombs
-
GG: Thanks for your effort. You did a good job matching the MKS and British systems. The equation is a standard type force equation so it should work in any system although I never thought of such things.
The units still don't match up, though. The left side is measured in newtons (which are kilogram-meters per second squared). The right side (after much simplification) is measured in kilograms per second squared.
-
Bored Chemist says:
By observation, no; it is not.
The charge of a proton, an antimuon, a +ve pion, and a positron are all the same.
The masses are all different.
GG: Yes they have different masses. It is necessary to calculate how many positive, negative and bipolar dot-waves are in each particle. At the dot-wave level the charge and the mass are related by a constant which depends upon the system of units you are in. For the MKS system a dot-wave has a mass of 1.96867E-71 kilograms and a charge of 3.47119E-60 Coulombs
Since it will always be possible to make up numbers of "angels dancing on pins" or "dot waves" to get the numbers to tally, it is impossible to falsify the claim.
So the claim isn't science.
This is a science web site.
Please come back with evidence, or not at all.
-
To Kryptid
Naked 2.21.20 5 pm
The left side of the equation is kilograms meters per second squared. This is mass time acceleration. F= mass x acceleration =kilograms meters/ second squared
The right side of the equation for units is
F = Uo Q Co Q Vb*/ RR where Co is the speed of light and Vb* is the velocity of expansion of the hydrogen atom Bohr radius and R is the distance between the two atoms
So we have Uo coulombs meters per second x coulombs meters per second / meters squared.
Breaking the R R into two parts we get
F = Uo [coulomb x meters/(second x meters)] x [coulomb meters/(second x meters)]
We can then get rid of the meters
F = Uo [(Coulomb/second) (Coulomb/second)
F = Uo I I
The force per unit length between two current carrying wires on the internet is
F/L = Uo Ia Ib/ 2 pi R
Since L and R are both meters, the force units are
F = Uo Ia Ib = electrical permeability times the current in wire a time the current in wire b
In any event the right side of the equation is a standard form of electrical force equation which is mass time the acceleration.
-
To Kryptid
Naked 2.21.20 5 pm
The left side of the equation is kilograms meters per second squared. This is mass time acceleration. F= mass x acceleration =kilograms meters/ second squared
The right side of the equation for units is
F = Uo Q Co Q Vb*/ RR where Co is the speed of light and Vb* is the velocity of expansion of the hydrogen atom Bohr radius and R is the distance between the two atoms
So we have Uo coulombs meters per second x coulombs meters per second / meters squared.
Breaking the R R into two parts we get
F = Uo [coulomb x meters/(second x meters)] x [coulomb meters/(second x meters)]
We can then get rid of the meters
F = Uo [(Coulomb/second) (Coulomb/second)
F = Uo I I
The force per unit length between two current carrying wires on the internet is
F/L = Uo Ia Ib/ 2 pi R
Since L and R are both meters, the force units are
F = Uo Ia Ib = electrical permeability times the current in wire a time the current in wire b
In any event the right side of the equation is a standard form of electrical force equation which is mass time the acceleration.
I think I see what you did now. You took a known gravitational force, compared it to the known electromagnetic force in the same system, and then came up with a number to relate those two values. Unfortunately, that doesn't tell us anything profound. I can make the exact same kind of equation comparing the Earth's gravity with Mars' gravity, for example. It certainly isn't evidence for the validity of your model.
By the way, how does your model account for the existence of the strong nuclear and weak nuclear forces? Why do some particles interact with the strong nuclear force but not others? Why can dot-waves come together to form certain types of particles but not others? Surely it would be possible to arrange dot-waves to produce negatively-charged particles with only one-tenth or one-one-hundredth of the electron's mass. So why don't those particles seem to exist? How does it account for conserved properties such as lepton number or baryon number?
-
Naked 2.23.20 8 AM
Kryptoid asks:
By the way, how does your model account for the existence of the strong nuclear and weak nuclear forces? Why do some particles interact with the strong nuclear force but not others? Why can dot-waves come together to form certain types of particles but not others? Surely it would be possible to arrange dot-waves to produce negatively-charged particles with only one-tenth or one-one-hundredth of the electron's mass. So why don't those particles seem to exist? How does it account for conserved properties such as lepton number or baryon number?
GG: The concern of my model is the underlying structure of the universe. It is composed of a multiplicity of two things. As the dot-waves are compressed they form photons, sub-particle, and particles. The complexity increases greatly. Atomic physics describes the interactions of particles and photons composed of huge numbers of dot-waves. I have no answers for your questions. That is for the physicists who specialize in such things.
We can never measure a single dot-wave. We measure things related to our electrons which has a charge of Q. As far as an electron with only one tenth the mass, that would require it to have one tenth the charge as well. Someday five hundred billion years from now, the electron will radiate enough dot waves to do that. Then it will explode and the universe will be gone.
-
Kryptid said:
I think I see what you did now. You took a known gravitational force, compared it to the known electromagnetic force in the same system, and then came up with a number to relate those two values. Unfortunately, that doesn't tell us anything profound. I can make the exact same kind of equation comparing the Earth's gravity with Mars' gravity, for example. It certainly isn't evidence for the validity of your model.
GG: The whole purpose of the calculation was to produce a time of the universe since big bang equivalent to what the astronomers got in 1981-3. At that time it was around 15 billion years according to the limited data I had. This was before I had a home computer and the internet. All I had is very limited information.
A few years ago I had to add the cosine of 30 degrees to get the 13.78 billion years which is closer to the astronomers today. The whole purpose was to get the radius of the universe from the big bang to what is observed by the Hubble effect. This enables me to find the longest wavelength so that I can find the mass of a dot-wave based upon the radius of the universe.
Since I needed the cosine 30 degrees it tells me that the expanding field of the hydrogen atom is an AC type field rather than a DC type field.
By the way, on another group I pay a yearly fee to get rid of the ads. Is there some way to do that here?
-
The whole purpose of the calculation was to produce a time of the universe since big bang equivalent to what the astronomers got in 1981-3.
Is that so? So when you made that thread about how you could calculate the age of the Universe, you actually weren't doing that at all. All you were doing was working backwards from the known age.
A few years ago I had to add the cosine of 30 degrees to get the 13.78 billion years
You can't arbitrarily add numbers to an equation in order to make it work. If the numbers were not implied by the model in the first place, then there is no reason for them to be added after the fact. One of the factors that has made relativity so successful is the fact that its equations have matched observational data without any fudge factors added in.
The concern of my model is the underlying structure of the universe
The strong and weak nuclear forces are a part of that underlying structure. They are just as important as electromagnetism and gravity. If you have no problem dealing with those two forces, then why are the strong and weak nuclear forces a problem?
As far as an electron with only one tenth the mass, that would require it to have one tenth the charge as well. Someday five hundred billion years from now, the electron will radiate enough dot waves to do that. Then it will explode and the universe will be gone.
That violates conservation of charge.
-
Naked 2.23.20 10 pm
Discussion with Kryptid:
GG: The whole purpose of the calculation was to produce a time of the universe since big bang equivalent to what the astronomers got in 1981-3.
Kryptid: Is that so? So when you made that thread about how you could calculate the age of the Universe, you actually weren't doing that at all. All you were doing was working backwards from the known age.
GG: You are probably right. I do not always find the right words to express what I am doing. That is why at Sperry I had technical writers explaining how my designs worked to the Government. (As best as they could).
I had concluded that the equivalent electrical force between two hydrogen atoms related to the current of expansion of the Bohr Orbit of one atom and the spinning electron’s current in the second atom and vice versa. This enabled two parts of the equation in which a very tiny current of expansion is multiplied by the much larger Bohr orbit current of the electron as it revolves around the proton. So most of the equation is readily written from standard electrical theory. This produces an equation with a factor of less than ten to the Astronomer’s answer.
Assuming that the astronomers are correct, and then I can find the correction factor using the 4 pi term and the Cosine term. 4 pi is common to many electrical equations so it looked like a good fit. The Cosine was added years later when better numbers became available to me from astronomical data. A better mathematician no doubt would be able to produce a better explanation for the equation.
To me the equation is an electrical representation of the gravitational force between to hydrogen atoms. The Quantum physicists no doubt have better answers for their own purposes. My purpose is to produce an electrical model equivalent. It is my belief that the universe is governed by simple algebraic equations like Newton’s equations.
As I see it, the actual time since big bang in clock ticks is nearly infinite. The tiny hydrogen atom of long ago had much more charged and much more mass. Over time it radiated away and the equations would still be valid in terms of a variable clock if everything followed an e^-x function. If not then things get even more complicated.
If the equation had no real value then we could not take a very tiny expansion velocity and the high speed electron in the Bohr orbit and get the expansion rate of the universe within a ball park factor of ten or less.
Your example of using a common equation relating an electrical force to a mechanical force is meaningless. The Bohr Orbit equation is
K Q Q/RR = M V V/ R
This equation solves for the speed of rotation of the electron and the corresponding radius of orbit as per Bohr work. It is a centripetal force type equation and not a gravitational equation.
My equation is quite different. When I wrote it down in 1981 it amazed me and my fellow engineers and physicists who I discussed it with. It appears to me now that the equation is not the cause of the gravitational force but it is an effect of the gravitational force. Thus it is a valid equation but it is not the driving force.
Einstein’s answers seem pretty good except the force curving his space-time comes from the fifth dimension. The oscillation of particles in the fourth dimension at our light speed pushes against the higher light speed dimension. It is this dimension that pushes back and curves Einstein’s space time.
Anyway someday scientists will come to realize that. However it may take another one hundred years.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Today at 14:52:27
GG: A few years ago I had to add the cosine of 30 degrees to get the 13.78 billion years
Kryptid: You can't arbitrarily add numbers to an equation in order to make it work. If the numbers were not implied by the model in the first place, then there is no reason for them to be added after the fact. One of the factors that have made relativity so successful is the fact that its equations have matched observational data without any fudge factors added in.
GG: I have no complaints with relativity. It is an excellent model for a four dimensional universe. It does not explain what causes gravity. Long ago Einstein had to use a constant in his work which he was not happy with at the time. Years ago I doubted Einstein’s work but over time I have come to realize that his answers are the best possible describing function for a lot of the universe. He did not understand that black holes radiate away into the fifth dimension. Yet in time people will understand that.
As far as me matching the equations to fit, I have no ability to produce three dimensional equations to describe the interaction between the hydrogen atom currents. All I can do is to write the approximate answer and match it to a known answer.
In any event that is the way my mind works. On tests I write down the answer and then work backwards to the question. Yet I had to bring my mind to a highly excited state to do that. That was a long time ago. Right now I am just a slow minded elderly person who is going to get his right eye cut open Friday and I am hopeful that I will have two working eyes afterwards.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Today at 13:30:49
GG: The concern of my model is the underlying structure of the universe
Kryptid: The strong and weak nuclear forces are a part of that underlying structure. They are just as important as electromagnetism and gravity. If you have no problem dealing with those two forces, then why are the strong and weak nuclear forces a problem?
GG: I had some answers in my Doppler Space time of 2000 for these forces but I have stopped working on these. The big problem is that I have no lab experience with such things. For gravity, I can do some simple experiments at home to study it. I can take a simple gyroscope toy and experiment with it. I can push an object and get an idea of what is happening.
At work I could build many electrical things. At home I could do the same. Then I could design things by inspection and test them and see them work. I have to be with things and touch things. I am not a scientist but an engineer. And I would not be happy being a scientist.
So I build universes in my mind. I study variable light speeds, variable constants, etc. Then I pick what is most likely possible. Mostly my work is intuitive. Something seems right to me. Then my unconscious mind brings me a solution in my dreams or sometimes in audio/visual communication. Then I study the possibility.
Over time things change. I study the principles of string theory and see that they look for other dimensions. Some physicists who work on pure theory and seek new ideas often ask for a copy of my books when I email them. They look for new ideas out of the box so they say.
Anyway I like to paint houses and fix things. It takes me a lot of time to do a small job now. So on one hand I am building universes in my mind and fixing a toilet with my hands.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Today at 13:30:49
GG: As far as an electron with only one tenth the mass, that would require it to have one tenth the charge as well. Someday five hundred billion years from now, the electron will radiate enough dot waves to do that. Then it will explode and the universe will be gone.
Kryptid: That violates conservation of charge.
GG: The conservation of charge works well for a closed system universe. Once you have a fifth dimension the charge Q will fall and be radiated into the fifth dimension. The conservation of energy fails as well as the energy exits the fourth dimension (our light speed Co) and enters the fifth dimension. The total energy is constant when you add both dimensions. Mass is not conserved since the mass of a dot-wave in the Cs dimension is very small The same is true of the charge of a dot-wave when you enter the fifth dimension.
The fifth dimension permits the universe to oscillate perpetually. The big bang inversion will occur over and over again forever. Cold death evaporates away. Time is meaningless. At the beginning is meaningless. It is a different universe that I see. I build practical universes in my mind. Are they correct? Time will tell.
-
Does your model predict that red photons and blue photons contain different numbers of dot-waves?
-
Kryptid asks:
Does your model predict that red photons and blue photons contain different numbers of dot-waves?
GG: The amount of dot-waves within a photon is the equivalent rest mass of the photon divided by 1.96867E-71 kilograms which is the mass of a dot-wave. No two red photons have the same amount of dot-waves. As I see it, photons are soft energy devices and they breathe. As the gravitational field increases they absorb more dot-waves. As the gravitational field decreases they lose dot-waves. They leave the sun shifted more to the blue. As they enter the balance point between the sun's field and the Earths field, they move toward the red. Then they slowly gain dot-waves as they reach toward the Earth. Thus photons continually change energy levels. In general particles such as electrons will maintain their charge Q but they will absorb bipolar dot-waves depending upon their speed and the gravitational density. Therefore no two particles or photons have exactly the same amount of dot-waves.
-
GG: The amount of dot-waves within a photon is the equivalent rest mass of the photon divided by 1.96867E-71 kilograms which is the mass of a dot-wave.
So the number of dot-waves depends on the photon energy, just as I thought. I see a potential problem here: a photon's energy is not absolute but rather varies from one reference frame to another. A spaceship moving towards the Sun will see a particular photon as having more energy than it would if it was moving away from the Sun instead (blueshift vs. redshift). This implies a contradictory number of dot-waves in that photon depending on your reference frame. In one it is made of more and in the other it is made of less. Relativity does allow for certain quantities to differ between reference frames (passage of time, relativity of simultaneity, mass/energy) but I don't think it allows for the total number of objects in a system to differ. If I'm wrong about that, I hope someone more knowledgeable about relativity will correct me on that.
-
Kryptid says:So the number of dot-waves depends on the photon energy, just as I thought. I see a potential problem here: a photon's energy is not absolute but rather varies from one reference frame to another. A spaceship moving towards the Sun will see a particular photon as having more energy than it would if it was moving away from the Sun instead (blueshift vs. redshift). This implies a contradictory number of dot-waves in that photon depending on yreference frame. In one it is made of more and in the other it is made of less. Relativity does allow for certain quantities to differ between reference frames (passage of time, relativity of simultaneity, mass/energy) but I don't think it allows for the total number of objects in a system to differ. If I'm wrong about that, I hope someone more knowledgeable about relativity will correct me on that.
GG: There are two different problems as I see it. Fro a stationary perspective the number of dot-waves in a photon will depend upon the gravitational density. From a measurement perspective you get the Doppler effect. So a spaceship moving toward the sun will see a photon blue shifted while when moving away from the sun it will see it red shifted. In that case the photon has exactly the same amount of dot-waves within it.
-
Fro a stationary perspective the number of dot-waves in a photon will depend upon the gravitational density.
Gravity doesn't matter. You can imagine the exact same scenario happening in an empty Universe (except for the photon and ship, obviously). The Doppler effect will still change the energy measured for the photon depending on the ship's speed. There are no sources of gravity in this scenario that will affect the photon. Yet the measured energy (and therefore number of dot-waves) will still differ depending on the Doppler shift.
-
As I see it, photons are soft energy devices and they breathe.
Can I just check on something?
Do you realise this is a science site?
-
Kryptoid: Gravity doesn't matter. You can imagine the exact same scenario happening in an empty Universe (except for the photon and ship, obviously). The Doppler effect will still change the energy measured for the photon depending on the ship's speed. There are no sources of gravity in this scenario that will affect the photon. Yet the measured energy (and therefore number of dot-waves) will still differ depending on the Doppler shift.
GG: A photon from the right and a photon from the left of spaceship will have exactly the same energy to a stationary spaceship. Yet the effect of the photon to the spaceship moving toward the photon will be at a higher energy level due to the speed of the spaceship. The spaceship is filled with photonic dot-waves and these will add to the photon as it hits the spaceship or subtract from the photon when the space ship is traveling in the opposite direction.
Einstein's rules work because there are basic photonic interactions which are not accounted for in ordinary physics. Thus there are dot-wave interactions and large scale electron/photon interactions.
-
GG: A photon from the right and a photon from the left of spaceship will have exactly the same energy to a stationary spaceship. Yet the effect of the photon to the spaceship moving toward the photon will be at a higher energy level due to the speed of the spaceship. The spaceship is filled with photonic dot-waves and these will add to the photon as it hits the spaceship or subtract from the photon when the space ship is traveling in the opposite direction.
Okay, perhaps that's fair. Your model is still incorrect because it predicts the wrong value for known constants. You claim that those constants can vary in strong gravitational fields, but that isn't correct. You don't even need relativity to demonstrate that. Conservation of energy in itself is enough to demonstrate that the gravitational constant does not change in high fields of gravity.
Consider Pluto as it is right now. It has a set gravitational potential energy that is determined by the Sun's mass, its own mass, its distance from the Sun and the gravitational constant. Change any one of those parameters and the potential energy changes as well. Now we collapse the Sun down into a black hole of equal mass. The Sun's mass, Pluto's mass and the distance all remain the same. But what if we assume that the high gravity of the black hole increases the gravitational constant? That would result in more force per unit mass, which would increase the gravitational pull on Pluto. This results in a higher gravitational potential energy.
This, however, cannot happen. More energy cannot spring up spontaneously out of nowhere. That violates conservation of energy. This is how we know that the gravitational constant does not change from one scenario to another.
-
Naked 2.29.20 8 am
Kryptoid said:
Okay, perhaps that's fair. Your model is still incorrect because it predicts the wrong value for known constants. You claim that those constants can vary in strong gravitational fields, but that isn't correct. You don't even need relativity to demonstrate that. Conservation of energy in itself is enough to demonstrate that the gravitational constant does not change in high fields of gravity.
Consider Pluto as it is right now. It has a set gravitational potential energy that is determined by the Sun's mass, its own mass, its distance from the Sun and the gravitational constant. Change any one of those parameters and the potential energy changes as well. Now we collapse the Sun down into a black hole of equal mass. The Sun's mass, Pluto's mass and the distance all remain the same. But what if we assume that the high gravity of the black hole increases the gravitational constant? That would result in more force per unit mass, which would increase the gravitational pull on Pluto. This results in a higher gravitational potential energy.
This, however, cannot happen. More energy cannot spring up spontaneously out of nowhere. That violates conservation of energy. This is how we know that the gravitational constant does not change from one scenario to another.
GG: Thanks for your analysis. I do not have fixed opinions in many cases. I choose the most likely solution. I do not recall saying that the gravitational constant varies with the gravitational field intensity. Yet I may have since I do not have the best of memory.
Your example makes sense to me. If the mass of the dying sun remains the same, the pull of the sun on the planets should remain the same.
What I am concerned with is the variation of the gravitational field as the mass of the universe declines through radiation of energy into the fifth dimension. In order to the big bang inversion to occur, the gravitational constant must be near zero at the inversion point. Likewise when the universe reaches toward infinity, the gravitational constant must be very high. For my electrical model, the gravitational constant is
G = Meters squared /Coulomb seconds
As the universe expands meters gets larger and seconds gets larger for a constant light speed Co. At the same time the coulombs in the universe decreases. Thus near infinity the gravitational constant is near infinite. At big bang inversion meters is very tiny and coulombs is very large. Thus the universe cannot sit in a lump at big bang inversion as the gravitational constant is basically zero.
When we look at the impedance of the universe for the electrical model we get
Z = Meters cubed/ Coulomb seconds squared. At the big bang inversion we get zero impedance and at near infinity we get nearly infinity impedance.
I really do not have that much to say about collapsing stars. I believe the scientists have very good answers in that regard. Likewise Einstein and the Quantum physicists have done excellent work. Yet I believe that the universe is radiating away from the Co dimension to the Cs dimension. When it does, the mass of the universe will decay and the constants will change. I take a linear e^x waveshape but it could have been very non-linear with heavy change right after big bang inversion and a much slower change at present. This is for future mathematicians and scientists to discover.
-
I do not recall saying that the gravitational constant varies with the gravitational field intensity. Yet I may have since I do not have the best of memory.
The point is that G can not vary. It doesn't matter what "cause" is put forward.
-
I do not recall saying that the gravitational constant varies with the gravitational field intensity.
You were using it as an excuse to explain why the value you calculated for G was not the same as the experimentally determined value for G. Your explanation was that the value of G when measured in free space far from any sources of gravity should be different from what we measure in the Earth's gravitational field. My example demonstrates why that is not the case.
-
Kryptid said:
You were using it as an excuse to explain why the value you calculated for G was not the same as the experimentally determined value for G. Your explanation was that the value of G when measured in free space far from any sources of gravity should be different from what we measure in the Earth's gravitational field. My example demonstrates why that is not the case.
GG: Thanks for reminding me. You say that G is a constant everywhere in the universe independent of the gravitational field. I say that G varies with time. I previous said that G was related to various constants. such as pi,4, e, 137.036, etc. Thus I have a conflict. Your answer of an everywhere G is a more likely solution. This is especially true since long ago I had a single light speed solution and now I have a dual light speed solution. So I will have to revise my words in the future. Thanks.
-
I say that G varies with time.
Then you are wrong, for exactly the same reason given before. If G varies then the energy stored in a book on a shelf varies- which is a contravention of the conservation laws.
But the real question is, if you are bright enough to rewrite the laws of physics as we know them,
how come you didn't spot that?
-
So I will have to revise my words in the future. Thanks.
You're welcome. It's nice that you are actually willing to look over your work and accept criticism graciously. There have been quite a few others here that wouldn't do that...
-
Naked 3.1.20 9 am
Bored Chemists asks
GG said: G varies with time
BC: Then you are wrong, for exactly the same reason given before. If G varies then the energy stored in a book on a shelf varies- which is a contravention of the conservation laws.
GG: The conservation laws look at the universe as a static entity. The energy is constant. However with a dual light speed solution, the total energy is constant but the energy of our light speed Co dimension decays toward zero as the universe expands toward infinity.
What is the rate of change of G? If the rate of change was linear then over one hundred years G would have changed by
(100 years/ 13.78 billion years)x 100 percent = 0.0000007 percent.
So the rate of change for a linear change is too small to be accurately measured. In addition the ruler would have expanded slightly and the time clock would have slowed. This would make any measurement of change basically impossible to find.
In addition the universe expanded very rapidly at the beginning and thus it was very non-linear making the linear portion having even smaller changes.
-
The conservation laws look at the universe as a static entity.
No, they look at is as a symmetrical entity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
Once again, I find myself wondering why you didn't find out what the current scientific theories were before trying to show they were wrong.
"What is the relationship between mass and charge?"
Why assume there is one?
-
Bored Chemist asks:
Once again, I find myself wondering why you didn't find out what the current scientific theories were before trying to show they were wrong.
GG: In Engineering school and modern physics classes we were taught the fundamental theories such as the conservation of energy. They failed to adequately explain what happened before the big bang inversion and what will happen in the future. In addition they failed to produce a universe from only two things. So I looked for solutions. Quantum theory and string theory allows for more exciting things such as more dimensions. And I believe the time dimension is best described as two time dimensions or two light speed dimensions.
-
Kryptid says:
You're welcome. It's nice that you are actually willing to look over your work and accept criticism graciously. There have been quite a few others here that wouldn't do that...
GG: My work contains the basic conversion from mass to charge as an electrical model. It also contains the expansion of the universe calculation. Then it contains a lot of fluid ideas which is the most likely choice of two or more choices. So I am happy when you criticize a particular choice and help me to see that it is not the best choice. Some of the things I post now are ideas which are only a few days old. So I am still thinking about them. Anyway thanks for your criticism, it helps.
-
They failed to adequately explain what happened before the big bang inversion and what will happen in the future.
That's because they are science, and science can't do anything without evidence.
So I looked for solutions.
And, because you also have no evidence, what you have is not science. It is a made up crock.