Sensei

We have isomer isotope with mass m1. Then it's decaying by isomeric transition to "plain" isotope with mass m2. Energy of gamma photon is [latex]E_y = (m_1-m_2 ) * c^2[/latex] Before transition/decay higher mass of isomer was influencing gravity by small factor. After decay total energy is still the same. Before decay we had little gravity influence, after we don't have just because photon was emitted? Makes no sense. If gamma photon will be absorbed by some near material (and don't let escape Earth), and heat it, mass-energy of the system will remain constant. And we will have still the same gravitation as before.

Of course anybody can claim that. But have to prove it in experiment.. And it's different story. You should have open mind for any new experimental evidence that might come up in the future.

Correct. No. It produces down-quark, positron and neutrino. Positron is anti-particle of electron (opposite positive charge). Neutrino is anti-particle of anti-neutrino (or vice versa). This happens *exclusively* in proton-rich nucleus. If particle and anti-particle meet together, they annihilate. Which for positron and electron means that 2 or more gamma photons will be created in their place.

There is reverse of it in proton-rich nucleus. See my explanation here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85575-electrons-smaller-than-protons-but-have-equivalent-charge/?p=826742 That's quark-model (or any other sub-particles model) must agree with experimental data (decay of neutron, decay of proton-rich nucleus, decay of neutron-rich nucleus etc), than Universe must agree with theory. If there is disagreement, it's always fault of theory (for well established experimental data). In decays of more complex mesons and baryons you will probably find more examples of disagreements. Annihilation producing 3+ photons: [latex]e^+ + e^- \rightarrow \gamma + \gamma + \gamma + ...[/latex] (more photons) How do you solve it? Photon with energy [latex]E_1[/latex] is absorbed by material, and two new photons with energies [latex]E_2 + E_3 = E_1[/latex] are created. How do you solve it? What is difference between neutrino with max. 18.6 keV (from Tritium decay f.e.) from neutrino with 0.862 MeV (from Beryllium-7 decay) ? So, in your model gravity is not caused by any particle with G=0 "outside". Which means photon, pion+, pion0 Although they have rest-mass.. And positron possessing G=+2, will cancel electron G=-2, gravitation ? Sorry, but experimental evidences disagree with your theory..

Down quark is decaying to up quark and electron and antineutrino: [latex]d \rightarrow u + e^- + \bar V_e[/latex] It happens in neutron-rich nucleus, or bare neutron. [latex]n^0 \rightarrow p^+ + e^- + \bar V_e + 0.782 MeV[/latex] (neutron has half-life ~10 minutes, and mean-life ~15 minutes) The first isotope that's decaying this mode is Tritium (3rd isotope of Hydrogen, and the first unstable atom): [latex]T^+ \rightarrow _2^3He + e^- + \bar V_e + 18.6 keV[/latex] (Tritium has half-life 12.32 years) As you can easily see on the right side there is energy that varies depending on which isotope decayed. It's not constant. It's not even constant for electron and antineutrino. Once electron is accelerated more, other time reverse, and neutrino is taking more energy. Don't be "fooled" that down quark is "made of" electron and up quark. In proton-rich nucleus exactly reverse reaction happens: [latex]u \rightarrow d + e^+ + V_e[/latex] Up quark is decaying to down quark, positron and neutrino. f.e. Carbon-11 will decay to Boron-11, positron and neutrino: [latex]_6^{11}C \rightarrow _5^{11}B + e^+ + V_e + 0.960408 MeV[/latex]

I don't recommend you buying used one. Personally have dual-setup Samsung SyncMaster SA300 S24B150BL 24" LED. It's 16:9, Full HD. With good quality. On 1st I see stock market on-line charts, on 2nd I work. It looks like this:

Sorry, but WTF does it mean? I have bloody no idea.. (and you probably as well) Maybe image would be more helpful in visualizing it.. Like Feynman lines, showing how udd is changing to udu + e- + Ve.. Pion+ is made of 16 sub-particles? And pion0 is made of 8 sub-particles? You know that Pion+ can decay to Pion0 and positron and neutrino, right? If pion+ will decay to pion0, and then pion0 further to 2 gammas in your model I see total g = 0 [latex]\pi^+ \rightarrow \gamma + \gamma + e^+ + Ve[/latex] Meantime if it will decay through the most common decay path: [latex]\pi^+ \rightarrow \mu^+ + V_m[/latex] [latex]\mu^+ \rightarrow e^+ + V_e + \bar V_m[/latex] with overall formula: [latex]\pi^+ \rightarrow e^+ + V_e + \bar V_m + V_m[/latex] If I calc right, it's also g=0, but above you wrote [latex]\pi^+[/latex] has g=4 " summa active for outside in static status = 4*g" What I am missing? If Pion0 will decay to y + e+ + e-, I see that pion 0 has 8 your sub-particles, photon has 4, electron has 4, and neutrino has 4. 8 mismatch 12.. Right? What does mean +g and -g ? If +g-g = 0, their "charges" cancel together? And there is no gravitation from such particle? ps. Why are you wasting time coloring these quotes, instead of putting them in quotes? Simply write [ quote ] ..... and end it with [ /quote ] can be done with keyboard, no need to use mouse..

Plug energy monitor (it's quite cheap, something like $20) Like this 15 ukp cost https://energenie4u.co.uk/index.php/catalogue/product/ENER007 And you will know exactly how much device in your house is taking energy. If you will record 120 W (as Studiot worst case) and drop to 20 W, it means 100 J is saved per second. 100 J/s * 3600 s * 4 (h) * 30 (days) = 43.2 MJ 1 kWh = 3.6 MJ, so 43.2 MJ / 3.6 MJ = 12 kWh saved per month. 144 kWh per year. I am using 330 kWh per month. So 12 kWh from 330 kWh is just 3.7% less... That would be 2.5$ less on bill.. Never mind power, health is more important.. CRT is accelerating electrons and hitting them on screen, creating x-rays. That's why it has so bold lead glass screen for protection. But it can't absorb everything with 100% accuracy.

You're kinda turning everything upside down. Spins are measured by device, for particles we are able to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experiment or Zeeman effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeeman_effect From this experimental knowledge there has been created theory and conservation rules. Basing on conservation/formulas we can predict what spin will have to have particle that we have not detected yet. I don't have to search database of isotopes to check particular one if it has even quantity of protons and even quantity of neutrons - it will have nuclear spin 0 for sure.

There is no need for ionization radiation to break chemical bond. f.e. to split water molecule there is needed photon with E=1.23 eV, [latex] \lambda = 1008 nm[/latex] It's far, far away, from ionization radiation UV/x-ray/gamma photons.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photocatalytic_water_splitting ps. Just general thought. Not related to the main subject of this thread.

(first: note that this is a speculation about the structure of common particles by means of two sub particles) What is in that case structure of mesons: [latex]\pi^0[/latex] neutral pion [latex]\pi^+[/latex] charged pion+ [latex]\pi^-[/latex] charged pion- [latex]K^0S[/latex] neutral kaon short version [latex]K^0L[/latex] neutral kaon long version [latex]K^+[/latex] charged kaon+ [latex]K^-[/latex] charged kaon- Leptons 2nd generation: [latex]\mu^+[/latex] charged muon+ [latex]\mu^-[/latex] charged muon- There is 120+ mesons, and 130+ baryons that you have no idea about their existence.. "I am speaking about Planck particle"? Not at all.. It's hypothetical particle, that never has been found experimentally.. Who said it's true? What if attraction is property of any energy? Including photons, neutrinos or other neutral particles? But they travel with speed of light (or close to), so their influence is diminishing quickly (which disallows/make it hard to perform experiments with them).. Newton's gravity equation is: [latex]F = \frac{m_1 * m_2 * G}{r^2}[/latex] [latex]m = \frac{E}{c^2}[/latex] Insert one in another and you will get: [latex]F = \frac{E_1 * E_2 * G}{c^2*c^2*r^2}[/latex] I doubt you know how electricity works.. f.e. if you have NiMH AA battery-accumulator with U = 1.25 V, and 1400 mAh, what does it mean? Are you truly be able to tell me quantity of electrons it has? And amount of energy it can release? 1400 mAh is 1.4 Ah, it's unit C - Coulombs. 1.4A * 3600s = 5040 C Charges are quantized every e, one electron has Q = 1e = 1.602*10^-19 C So, battery with Q=5040 C has 5040 C/1.602*10^-19 C = 3.1461*10^22 electrons (on negative electrode, and similar quantity of "holes" (positive ions) on positive electrode). Each electron in U=1.25 V has kinetic energy 1.25 eV (E=1.25*1.602*10^-19 = ~2*10^-19 J), which it can spend on heating, creating photon or other way "lose" while passing through closed circuit between negative and positive electrode. In total energy one fully charged battery has is 5040 C * 1.25 V = 6300 J (~2*10^-19 J (energy of single electron) * 3.1461*10^22 (quantity of electrons) = 6300 J) It's energy enough for heating 19 grams of water from 20 C -> 100 C. To make cup of tea (250g) you would need 13-14 such batteries/accumulators. You have to work with everything at the same time (if they have substructure): - substructure of photon, - substructure of neutrinos, - substructure of electron/positron, - substructure of muons/tau, - substructure of mesons, - substructure of baryons, I gave you lecture for months, in previous post. Read about every single meson, and baryon, from the list.. How they're created, how they decay. The heavier they're the more ways they can decay.. Proton and antiproton annihilation at rest is VERY complicated, see attached picture: The most common path 35-36% is [latex]\pi^+ \pi^- + \pi^0 + \pi^0 + .....[/latex]

Sounds to me like home made battery.. Put piece of copper to container with salt water, with aluminium on other side. Check voltage with multi meter. Then check amperage. Connect multiple in parallel and serial. Check again. You will have to experiment with your own made electric engine.. Do you know how to make your own electric engine? It's just wire around piece of iron (electromagnet), placed between magnet. On YouTube there is plenty instructions how to make electric engine. f.e. According to pdf you can't use commercial batteries. But why not use self build battery? Which point is violated?

Are you familiar with Balmer series and Rydberg formula? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balmer_series http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_formula

Not "Joul", but "Joules" Here is yet another equation: [latex]E = h * f_C = 6.62607*10^{-34} J*s * 1.23559*10^{20} Hz \approx 8.1871*10^{-14} Joules[/latex] [latex]\frac{8.1871*10^{-14} Joules}{1.602*10^{-19} C} \approx 510998.928 eV \approx 511 keV \approx 0.511 MeV[/latex] [latex]Mp = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar*c}{G}} = \sqrt{\frac{1.0545718*10^{-34}*299792458}{6.67*10^{-11}}} = 2.17713575*10^{-8} kg[/latex] Do you realize it's mass of billions * billions * 13 protons? [latex]Mp * \sqrt{\alpha} = 1.8543368*10^{-9} kg[/latex] I don't doubt you do, and completely doesn't care about it... I assume their charges must be -1e and 0e? And then positron has +1e and 0e? Otherwise charges wouldn't match completely. Bosons have full integer spins, f.e. 0, 1. How two bosons joined together can give spin 1/2 ? If we would have 1/2 and +-1/2 it can end up 0, or 1. But if they're integer we will never end up with fractions.. ps. It would be good if you learn Latex http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LaTeX/Mathematics To show equations in proper math friendly way. ps2. Learn about mesons. How mesons are created, and how they decay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mesons ps3. Learn about baryons. How baryons are created, and how they decay. The only two stable baryons are proton and antiproton. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_baryons

If it's GR, everybody here know it already...

In numerator I see calculation of energy needed to heat 100 grams of water for 8.8 degrees. But what is in denominator? There will be unit issue this way.. J / (g*K) won't match with K... [latex]4.1855 \frac{J}{g*K}[/latex] is energy needed to heat 1 gram of water for 1 C (1 calorie XIX century energy unit).

Obviously. Obviously. Only people without PhD have here any theory.. The problem is that there is known 118 atoms, and nearly 3143 isotopes. Which one do you have in mind? Each of them have different mass, different energy, and different binding energy (I don't believe you know what is binding energy).. Yet another problem is that not only atoms are attracted by black hole, but also light-photons. (cut there rest of crap)

Who said rubber is smooth? Did you look at it by microscope? Good smooth surfaces have: specular highlights, and reflections like mirror..

Rough texture under microscope will look like mountains and valleys. While smooth will be pretty flat. How to get smooth surface? by f.e.heating and melting material. Liquid material from mountains will fill valleys and they will reduce them self. If we will send light beam to rough surface material, photons will bounce from mountains, bounce from valleys, perhaps many times, and photons will be going in the all random directions. Rough material has many surface normal vectors. Smooth material has quite uniform normal vector. Normal vector of surface is used to calculate direction of reflected light. Once one object mountains are attaching to other object mountains, while object is moving, or is under force, there is needed even more force to unlock them. There can be also attraction between positive ions in one object and negative ions in other object.

AC is swapping direction of electrons 50 Hz or 60 Hz, times per second, depending on country. So for AC both answers are correct. Correct. This can be even experimentally confirmed by plugging heating element to AC, and heating water (with mass m, and initial temperature T0), then through rectifying diodes DC (and heating it for the same period of time, same mass, same initial temperature). ~4.1855 J/K*g m=250 g of H2O T0=20 C T1=100 C ~4.1855 * ( 100 - 20 ) * 250 = 83710 J For U = 230 V, I = 2 A, time needed to increase temperature of water from 20 C to 100 C will be approximately 83710 / 460 = 182 seconds = 3 minutes 2 seconds.. But it's meaningless which one is more or less used. AC is used to transfer energy on large distances, while DC is what we use in f.e. electronic equipment. There is just a few devices that doesn't need DC, like light bulb, or heating element, that works regardless of direction of electrons/current. But diodes and transistors bother about it. LED won't shine light after plugging it reverse. You won't make electromagnet with AC for instance. It needs DC. Constant flow of electrons in one direction. Electromagnet that will be changing direction 50/60 times per second will not work. Whether electromagnet is repelling or attracting magnets is quite substantial difference... I can show you in couple minutes on video recorded by my phone how direction of current through my electromagnet is causing on compass array below it.. Electric motor will be spinning in opposite direction after applying to it current with opposite direction. Did you see my experiments with Cockcroft-Walton generator with 40000+ volts videos? Electrons gather on one side of capacitors, while other side has excess of electrons. We will see how on positive electrode will appear coronal discharge. Sometimes it looks like little violet thunderbolts. Positive electrode is stealing electrons of air medium, and medium is stealing electrons from surrounding it medium and it's going and going, like thunderbolt, with time. It takes even a few seconds when we can observe it growing. Once it reaches negative electrode, there is appearing electric arc between them, and electrons gathered on capacitors will flow freely to positive electrode, discharging. And then it can start from beginning. Just by looking at electrodes I can tell you which has excess of electrons, and which one has abundance of them. It's clearly visible after a few seconds while capacitors are loading.. Negative electrode (that has abundance of electrons) cannot steal electrons from Nitrogen & Oxygen from air, it has too many of them. Coronal discharges differ (visible by naked eye) between positive & negative electrodes. Of course they stop flowing, when there is no more abundance electrons, and no more "holes". The same is with charged capacitor. Electrons can flow from - side of it, to +, only to moment of ~full discharge... Actually I didn't draw it. These are images from wikipedia.

More informations about electromagnetic radiation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron_radiation Studiot, but centuries ago they picked up wrong direction of current I.. You see arrow of I is going from + to - in battery, while electrons are flowing in exactly opposite direction:

-1 for yet another time (I see it 3rd time, you have been warned already) using this forum for advertising your pay-per-view ebooks. Good scientist is sharing his knowledge for free, doesn't sell it. It's disappointing you're treating us as idiots... Who said we are students? ps. I have feeling you won't last long on this forum.. You have written just 6 posts, and 50% of them were advert...

You know - apogee, and perigee.. Similar like between Earth and Sun, we have perihelion, and aphelion. According to this website: https://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pacalc.html Max perigee is 356921 km and max apogee is 406568 km 406568/356921 = ~ 14% (~ -7... +7% from average) More info about perigee and apogee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsis Interesting question. If tidal forces are caused by only distance between our two (or more) massive objects, the strongest tidal should be at perigee or in perihelion. Tidal is not Earth-Moon phenomena. Between Jupiter and Io it also happens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(moon) (second paragraph). We can easily imagine 2 planets system in outer space, var away from any living stars, orbiting around elliptical orbits.

If that's truly the only source, then when Earth will be spinning at the same rate as Moon orbit around Earth (so they're facing always the same side), tidal should vanish. But I don't think so- we can easily imagine situation when both objects are facing always the same side to each other, but once they're closer, other time they're further from each other. And in such case also there should be tidal.

If you don't want insulation to dissolve, and contaminate solution, do the same as in Hofmann's voltameter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofmann_voltameter Place electrodes up-side-down in bottom of container. You can buy ready device for 50 ukp, see f.e. http://www.sci-mart.com/Chemistry/Stands/hoffman-voltmeter