mooeypoo

I just provided you with the SI units for Mass and Charge. Those units are *NOT* the same. Instead of explaining why you think they are the same, you put forth an irrelevant "i worked hard on this!" claim. Who cares how long you've worked on it, if your statement of units is false?? You have yet to provide ANY evidence any NO MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS AT ALL other than a brief wordsalad math-wannabe with mixed and UNTRUE units in it. I seriously disbelieve your credentials, judging from what you put forth, but regardless, they are absolutely irrelevant. The fact that the units of mass are not the same as the units of charge remains a fact no matter who says it and what credentials they hold. You could be the head of the Royal Astronomy society, and this statement is still wrong. Prove it (WITH SCIENCE!) or give up and go to a forum that doesn't require rigorous evidence procedure. ~moo Oh, and just another note -- if you've never learned physics, I suggest you get yourself off that high tree you're now on and consider the possibility that the people who DO learn physics actually know more than you.

Yeah I don't think the problem was the OP I think the problem was the conversation turning into a talk about religious opinions and religious minorities making bogus claims. That's why. But we can keep going with showing examples of how historically we found out the Earth's rotating (as in, we proved it).

My goodness. Have you even opened a physics book in your life? Ever? No. No. No. They're not. (source: http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect20/A1.html) Also, http://www.nyu.edu/pages/mathmol/textbook/atoms.html http://www.chem4kids.com/files/atom_structure.html http://www.aboutnuclear.org/view.cgi?fC=The_Atom,Structure_of_the_Atom http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch6/atom_emrframe.html http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/physics17/chapter13/chapter13.html http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~acarpi/NSC/3-atoms.htm http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/atom.htm So tell me, please, my dear jerrygg38: in which universe do you live that the electron and proton are fused together within the neutron? Because it's definitely not in the universe we live in.

Or even better: How would you find the mass of a NEUTRAL body with coulomb? I've asked this before and it was ignored. Should I be surprised?

" JG: I do not know if you are referring to me. Mass and charge have the same units but not the same properties. Charge produces mass and mass produces charge. thus they are sisters of each other. Who the heck taught you that?? Where did you read that? where are you getting this from!? Units of Mass: gram, kilogram.. (metric) / libra, pound (US/Brittish) Units of Charge:Coulomb (1Ampere * 1 Second), or even Faraday. Do these two look the same to you? If you claim mass is equal to charge, you must explain and prove it. If you claim the UNITS are the same, you've never opened or read a physics book, and you apparently don't know the meaning of SI units. Seriously. It's a science forum. Before we can discuss the validity (or lack thereof) of you theory, we should make sure we START from a vaild premise. Since you seem to base your hypothesis on this INCORRECT STATEMENT, there's nothing to be said about the hypothesis itself. It's based on flawed premise, hence IT IS FLAWED. You can't seriously expect us to treat you seriously when your claims are just ridiculously unfounded and ignore truth. ~moo

Shh.. Didn't your horoscope said you shouldn't tell secrets today?

The International Space Station *sees* the rotation of the Earth. al the time from space. So do satellites; you compare the Earth to its position in front of the sun and you see it rotating while orbiting the sun. Day/Night proves rotation, too, unless people are completely oblivious to (oh,) reality and claim the sun orbits the Earth and not the other way around. Uh.. why is this even a question, again?

Can you not see that your theory is based, therefore, on old and incomplete data? You are claiming to explain EVERYTHING in existence (the whole universe, for that matter), with information that is outdated and lacking. .... and you expect us to just jump on board without reservations? seriously?

JG: The universe can be described in terms of coulombs/seconds/meters or kilograms/seconds/meters or Radians/seconds/meters. No, it cannot, and until you prove otherwise, there really isn't much to discuss here.

Of course it does... sorry, my bad, I was ... meh, I don't know what I was doing, but apparently i wasn't searching right. thanks

Okay, for something to be realistic it needs to be based on reality. That's quite simple. I am (well, used to be, no time now, sadly) a Startrek fan. Not one of those heavy-trekkies (or trekkers, whatever the difference is, though I think going to a convention once might be fun), but I do like it a lot, and as a child I was very much interested in how they explained the basis for their science. Gene Rodenberry, the creator of Star Trek, took it as a mission to make it as realistically-sounding as realistically-possible. He had a crew of scientists helping him form PLAUSIBLE theories and plausible engines/phenomena etc. In Star Trek TNG, Voyager and Deep Space 9, those scientists were responsible to make sure that whatever can be *based* on real scientific data, will be, and whatever can't be, will sound so complicated that it won't matter (the base for "Tehcno Babble"). As a result, a lot of what they show in Startrek (and before you flame me, guys, don't misquote me as saying *most* or *everything*.. just a lot) has a very nice "logic" to it. I have, at home, a book about "Enterprise Engineering" - a book full of the USS Enterprise blueprints and explanation about the tech and engines in a "scientific" manner. It all sounds really good, and it sounds realistic, and it's all total crap. It's make-belief. What's cool about the book, btw, is that whenever the authors had to invent something to make a technology possible, they wrote about it on the margins. They end up making a lot of invented-science to get to a lot of their technology, but the piont is that "IFFFFF there would be this and that, we would be able to--" the rest. That's pretty awesome, and it makes the show look realistic. But it's *NOT* based on reality. Not really. It sounds it, if you don't go into the real physics. It sounds it, if you are a kid or young adult with very little knowledge of the universe. It sounds it, if you don't know physics much. That's the point. To SOUNDS like it is realistic. But it's not. It's made up. The second the authors of the book had to *INVENT* a particle, or a phenomena, or guestimate without checking that there is "subspace", and then invent how it behaves based on whatever was available on their times, it is NO MORE than a really interesting, amusing, and perhaps fun, fantasy. If you invent a particle, then no matter how "logical" your remaining hypothesis is, it's still fantasy. If you invent phenomena and their properties, then no matter how "logical" your remaining hypothesis is, it's still fantasy. For this drive to be realistic, you need to make sure it's correlating with physical laws and that you can explain it WITHOUT inventing a particle or a phenomena. If you have reason to believe such particles exist, then you should go on, now, to *look* for those particles. That's what scientists do. There were a number of occasions where scientists assumed that there must be *something* (particle, phenomena, star, another planet) somewhere, that will explain their hypothesis. But as long as they didn't *FIND* this 'something', their theory was bunk. When they did, and that something correlated their assumption, they could go on to formulate their initial hypothesis, based on the behaviour of whatever it is they proved does exist. You can't just invent stuff and call it science. ~moo P.S - here's a nice reference to some StarTrek made-up engineering "Course" for an online gaming site - http://www.ucip.org/acad/courselist/guides/engineering/index.html#2 <-- the explanations sounds totally realistic (if you don't go into the full physics of it and ignore whatever's made up), which is why it's so much fun. It's also bunk. Completely. For so many reasons... nice read, though.

Perhaps. We require proof, though, is that too much to ask? Explanation? substantiation? saying "Einstein believed" with no reference as to where and what, specifically since the broad subject is not quite what Einstein formulated, is not too much to ask. I believe our major 'nay say' in this thread was trying to show that with the *given* explanation (non-existing or quite lacking), we really can't accept this theory at all. We posed counter-claims to the given claims, with no adequate response.. I don't think we're able to accept a theory with no proof or no attempt to explain inconsistencies. Hence our 'nay say' That's a good point, but look at the OP. He's not stating a *CORRELATION* between mass and charge, he's stating they're equal, or "the same". That's simply not true. Also, we're talking about two different 'depths', here, and they're absolutely not the same. For that matter, I can state that (like traveler said) there's no force at all operating on me when I sit still on the ground, because F=ma, and since there's no acceleration, there's no force. But that's *ONLY* true if I look at myself from the "Ftotal" view, ignoring the fact that forces DO apply on my body(they just happen to be equal to one another when i'm in equilibrium). Same here. If you go very very very small, then I guess you can claim everything has some sort of charge, because everything has an electron (or.. mostly everything). And the interaction of the strong force vs. the electromagnetic force are still studied in small particles. But from the above, concluding that all mass has charge - to a level of equating the two completely - is completely baseless. It's ignoring *everything else* that goes on in and out and near that charge, all other forces that make mass what it is. Again to my question -- Neutral conductors exist. That's a fact. Neutral conductors have no charge. That's also a fact. If you take what was said in the OP, Neutral conductors shouldn't exist. That's a problem. BTW, can you give reference for this? It sounds interesting and I couldn't find much online other than some photograph info about this.. I might've looked for it wrong, not sure, but if you know of any studies or articles, I'd like to read about this. Sounds interesting. But again, Severian, that's very interesting, but it's not quite what the OP is saying. Not at all. The Higgs Boson, if found to be true, is *not* negating all other fundamental forces, and it's not stating that mass *IS* charge (which it isn't, even if all mass *has* charge, which it doesn't). what you're syaing is very interesting, and I would actually like to read more about it, but I think that it's a completely different point, and it's far from being a completely different theory of existence, even if the higgs-boson is found. ~moo p.s - by the time you answer it'll change, of course, but I just thought I'd say congrats, I just noticed this was your 2,666 post . muahaha

BTW, a bit of news -- I was BABlogged http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/24/diary-of-a-non-miracle/ yay!

Hang on one minute, now. We were all contributing and participating in a discussion about your work. You just refused to answer our questions, and instead resorted to circular explanations that strayed away from the main points we were making. Don't go and present this as if no one is interested. We are interested to see your work - you just never SHOWED it. We're not interested in dreams and myths because they do not represent reality, they represent mythology and fantasy. If you want to show us how your theory is SCIENTIFIC (this *is* a science forum), you should base it on reality and not just on your personal wishful thinking. Evidence need to be shown. A full logical argument for your hypothesis need to be made. Mathematical proof must be made. Support by observations, and explanations of current phenomena using this theory *MUST* be presented to the fullest. ONLY after these conditions are met, we can discuss switching the current theories (that *work* mathematically as well as theoretically, and that explain, VERY WELL, the behavior in our universe). You just don't seem to want to contribute anything useful to the debate other than a repetitive statement of how much time you thought this through. You're in a science forums. You *chose* to come to a science forum. Meet our scientific rigor (which we apply to EVERYTHING and EVERYONE, not just you), and stop complaining about people not being interested. We wouldn't have wasted our time posting responses and questions if we were simply uninterested. ~moo

My Random Claim: A pink invisible elephant is hovering above my head, it is responsible for all the good coincidences that happen wherever I go. How would you differentiate your claim from my claim, if both cannot be detected? How would you know which one's ACTUALLY physical (hence, real), and which is made-up? And if you CAN'T notice it, can't detect it, cant see or detect its *influence* on anything, then.. why is it even relevant in a discussion about reality and physics?

A hypothesis is *possible* if it is based on reality (hence, if it has evidence on its side) *and* as long as there is no cases that blow it out of the water. Case in point: An incredibly massive neutral conductor. Mass = incredibly big. Charge = 0 (yes, that's a zero). Since these neutral conductors (and non conductors) *exist*, your hypothesis is, simply put, shown to be absolutely false. ~moo

Irrelevant, you still supplied no proof. JG: I am a theory producer not an evidence producer. The dot-wave is the smallest energy level in the universe. By itself it cannot be measured or detected. There can be no evidence of the existence of the dot-wave. It is beyond normal human comprehension. My mind sees it. I explain what I see. Some people will come to understand what I see. They will come to understand the truth of it. Most will not of course. Most minds are quite limited to what they have been taught or can measure. My mind does not suffer such limitations. A theory with no proof is indistinguishable from crackpot mythology. You don't need to prove your theory 100% yet. How 'bout giving us *something* that we can see you're basing your hypothesis on *anything* to do with reality?

you haven't even tried. Statements are worthless unless they are based on evidence. You've given none.

Yeah, this thread is walking the thin line of speculation. By the way, I resent the implication that moving a thread to the speculation forum is a "bad" thing or a "punishment", and is raised as a supposed "threat". Speculations can be quite excellent and very much contributing to our scientific thought, but they need to be based, at least in their 'base' in evidence. There's nothing wrong with speculations, as long as they are characterized as such.. if the thread 'moves to speculation' it just means that it's not a mainstream proven astronomical points that are raised, but rather speculative. I don't think people should treat this as a "threat". It is what it is, and we're having a discussion on subjects that (as Martin pointed out) are not yet known.

... Pushing. I need to find that resource again, but I think that you're wrong about this (not sure though ) -- I think that one of the relatively early feats of humanity was using animals for stuff, be it riding on it or using it for lifting. You can also put lots of stuff on their backs.. it's not THAT hard to figure out how to get an animal to pull (or push!) something; it's just hard to get that animal to do it in a manner that we consider humane. I think that what 'evolved' later on was the ethical thinking part -- getting animals not to die while working. I will try to find out more about this, not sure, but I heard somewhere that humanity has used animals for a very very very long time. I mean.. seriously, haven't you seen Xena: Warrior Princess ?! hehe jk, let me find more about this.

wow, uhm, first, put references and substantiations to what you're claiming.. specifically, what do you mean about Einstein "believing" mass and charge was identical?? I.. don't.. quite know this hypothesis (or "belief"). Einstein wasn't too prone on believing, he substantiated and worked hard on proving his statements and claims. As was pointed out in the other threads you've opened, the Universe has MANY OTHER FORCES in it other than electromagnetism. There are, specifically, four fundamental fources. Electromagnetism is ONE of them. The universe is not "electrical". If you think it is, you need to prove it. Your claims about mass = charge * velocity are unphysical to say the least. Simply 'stating this' does not make it so. For that matter, unless we are talking about extreme velocities (close to the speed of light), mass does not depend on velocity, and there *ARE* many many many objects that have mass and absolutely 0 charge (I can gve you examples of a few out of my recent EnM homework Everything else you're putting here, well, it's physically wrong notations and units, so I don't quite kniow how to begin addressing this. There's nothing in the real world to support what you're saying. If there is, you need to present it.

You know, other than physical strength, the human race has been using animals to do heavy lifting for many many years. Bulls, Elephants, Horses... these animals are very strong, specifically if used in groups, and can pull and push extremely large masses. ~moo

You know, if you don't know the origin of Dark Matter, or what it represents, you shouldn't post about it... Though there is quite a mystery about Dark Matter, it is far from being made up, its existence is vastly supported by observations and factual data. The only thing we aren't sure of is *WHAT* it is. We know "it" exists, because we see its effects.

How, exactly, is this helpful to the debate?