0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Where does the "positive repulsive force from above" come from?
Then we know from the kinetic energy equation Ek = (1/2)mv2
In other words the weight doesn’t change.
In my theory the positive charge of galaxies, stars, planets, moons, rocks, dust and gas create a positive electric field that permeates the entire universe. The strength of the positive force exerted on an atom depends on the strength of the positive charge of its poles.
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum, if exists, disproves conservation of mass and this equation too.
Forgetting about actual equations and numbers for a moment, surely you agree with these common sense notions:(1) It takes more energy to lift a 50 kilogram weight than it does to lift a 30 kilogram weight.(2) It takes more energy to throw a baseball at 100 kilometers per hour than it does to throw it at 60 kilometers per hour.(3) It takes more energy to climb 10 flights of stairs than it does to climb only 5 flights.
(2) Does your model predict that positrons and electrons have electric charge that is equal and opposite in magnitude?
It also takes more energy to stop a heavy mass from moving than it does a lighter mass if they are going the same speed.
Inversely, lighter masses are easier to move and easier to stop than heavy ones.
Since you agree that moving electrons have kinetic energy, then they must also have mass. If they were massless, then it would take no energy to stop their movement and hence they would not carry any kinetic energy that needed to be overcome or opposed. Given that you say that electrons fall in a gravitational field, that points towards them having mass as well.
The positive charge of a positron should be higher in magnitude than the negative charge of an electron. This gives a neutron a tiny positive charge (small fraction the charge of a positron). In weak gravitational fields a neutron forms a dipole with a stronger and weaker positive poles and falls at the same rate as other positively charged objects.
The natural motion of a neutron (any nuclear constituent consisting of equal number of positrons and electrons) passing through an electric field of equal and opposite charges is straight. A neutron passing through the field forms a dipole with positrons attracted to cathode and electrons attracted to anode at equal and opposite forces. An additional positron is required to change the straight trajectory of a neutron and may appear as resistance to acceleration.
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum falsifies everything you write about mass and energy.
Reading this thread, I am beginning to understand whence the Health and Safety Executive recruits its inspectors. That is not a compliment.
That contradicts what you said earlier:
You said that neutrons are not deflected by electric fields and that the forces on their constituent positrons and electrons are equal and opposite. The forces cannot be equal if the positron is more highly charged than the electron.
So positrons and electrons are massless in your model.
I would like to know if your model predicts that a single composite particle that is not bound inside of an atom (in other words, a free proton or a free neutron) has a temperature.
A free proton and a free neutron don't have temperature.
Then that means that the mass of free particles is constant.
Now I need to know how the mass of composite particles is determined from their structure.
Proton................P2E..............938.27 MeVAntiproton..........PE2..............938.27 MeVNeutron.............P3E3............939.57 MeVMuon.................P?E?............105.66 MeVTau....................P?E?............1,776.82 MeVOmega Minus....P?E?............1,672.45 MeVNeutral Pion......P?E?.............134.98 MeVPositive Pion.....P?E?.............139.57 MeVZ Boson.............P?E?.............91,187.6 MeV
The charge and speed of a free particle impacting a detector determine its energy.
Proton...............P2EAntiproton.........PE2Neutron.............PE....and.....P2E2.....and......P3E3......excI am not sure about the rest of the particles in the list but can imagine other particles such as P2E3 and P3E2 and others emerging from the debris of nuclear collisions.
I'm talking about mass, not energy. You've insisted that E=mc2 and even Ek = (1/2)mv2 are incorrect, so surely you're not trying to equate mass with energy?
So your model can't explain the structures and masses of the other particles? That's a big problem.
I think to equate energy to electric current produced by a particle hitting an opaque detector. A fast particle should register a higher current than a slow particle of equal charge. Also a high charge particle should register a higher current than a low charge particle travelling at the same speed.
The figures provided are incorrect if any of the predictions raised in this thread are confirmed by experiments and should not be used to discard my theory.
So what makes one particle heavier than another? Will a particle with more charge weigh more than one with less charge? Will a particle containing more electrons be heavier than one with less electrons? Or do more positrons make it weigh more instead? Or is it the total of both that matters? Or is it a combination of the total number of electrons and positrons and the net charge on the composite particle that determines the mass?
Quote from: Kryptid on 11/01/2018 21:49:58So what makes one particle heavier than another? Will a particle with more charge weigh more than one with less charge? Will a particle containing more electrons be heavier than one with less electrons? Or do more positrons make it weigh more instead? Or is it the total of both that matters? Or is it a combination of the total number of electrons and positrons and the net charge on the composite particle that determines the mass?Maybe (total number of positrons and electrons) to (charge) ratio ?
Maybe (total number of positrons and electrons) to (charge) ratio ?