Kramer

Controversial : Special relativity miss something from General relativity. ( An idiot try to revise EINSTEIN ) Special relativity was promoted 10 years later than General relativity, and in its base formula it doesn’t reflect the relation that it has with gravity. Only indirect Einstein promote idea that change of velocity bring change in mass via: m1 = m0 * γ1; m2 = mo*γ2 etc. The modern physic, this assertion of Einstein, considers a mistake. The modern physic, try to throw out of scene of physic mass particles, and to substitute it with overall energy notion without mass. In fact nobody denied the change of space dimensions by velocity. But here is the trick: if elementary particles have a spatial configuration, those dimension will change when change velocity. And here is the corner where to push the logic: It is fact that particles have a relation between their spatial dimension with mass. And is fact, that the particles with greater mass have smaller radius; that means that if velocity change the dimension of particles, it change their mass. So the idiot propose change of basic formula as below; Revising Einstein Г = 1 / (1 – β ^ 2 ) ^ 0.5 Revised : Г= 1 / ( (1 – β ^ 2 ) ^ 0.5 + ( Vg / C ) * Г ) Here Vg = ( G * Mx / (Rx+d) ) ^ 0.5 < C (Mx, Rx---mass and radius of moving of “X” object) ( d -----Distance from observer) Doing a calculation with “fingers” and step by step: Γ0 = 1 / ( ( 1 – β0 ) ^ 0.5 + ( Vg / C ) ) ; for β0 = 0 Γ1 = 1 / ( ( 1 - β ^ 2) ^ 0.5 + ( Vg / C ) * Γ0 ) ; Γ2 = 1 / ( ( 1- β ^ 2 ) ^ 0.5 + ( Vg / C ) * Γ1) ; ---------------------------------------------- Γn = 1 / ( ( 1- β ^ 2 ) ^ 0.5 + ( Vg / C ) * Γ ( n – 1 ) ) ; There are three graphs from calculations: 1 -- Einstein’s infinity for β = 1. via Γ = 1 / (1-β^2)^0.5 2 – The rate C / Vg different from infinity, for β = 1 3-- The change of “Γ” by “step by step influence of gravity”. It reach a max. when C / Vg = (1 – βcr^2) ^ 0.5 for a β critique and further collapse in C / C. Now shoot.

Bignose In short, if you are just going to shirk the evidence portion of the process, then you need to take this to a metaphysics or spiritual or some other forum where the scientific process isn't held in high esteem. ----- Be careful for yourself because the mathematicians working with abstracts are more inclined toward metaphysics and mystics,--- where are pushing science. Just to be clear, I am NOT saying that I expect you to be able to go out and build own super collider ----Thanks anyway that have deliberate from a heavy burden Swansont You still have a responsibility to present some kind of evidence, model or way to test your idea. This is a science discussion board, not a blog or dorm-room bull session. We test for the existence of other particles, why not yours? Even point particles, which are how most fundamental particles are modeled. We detect them by seeing how they interact. Which is exactly one way that we test for the particles we see in the standard model, and all of the combinations of them we find. Rather than be granted an exception, all you have done is confirm you should be able to present tests of your idea. I fail to see how that will change the way conservation of charge works. But given that matter and antimatter do annihilate, how would repulsion fit in with that? BTW, CERN is going to test whether they have negative gravitational mass. The gravitational interaction between a particle and antiparticle is negligible. Unless you're claiming otherwise, in which case: model, test, evidence, please. ------ Thanks for your moderate rebut (If my impression is not a mistake). I have had a good time debating with you about my hypothesis, in a number of threads that had “Unique sub-particle” as a laid motive. Now I see that my little baggage of scarce knowledge is quite empty for a dispute that tends to put in “uncertainty” some basic concept of modern physics. My threads didn’t attired any attention from physicist or mathematicians, for any companionship, this means that I am lone in an deserted path. I quit. You my close my threads. About expected experiment in CERN with anti hydrogen atom, I think that if they find repulsive gravity force between matter and antimatter this will have tremendous repecusion in physic.

Swanson Any evidence at all, at this point. That's what the rules demand. more than an interpretation of the facts. Mainstream physics is a collection of models which have been tested, and predict how things behave, and exclude other interpretations. The way you test to see if other interpretations work is you make predictions with them and see if nature actually behaves that way. And you compare it with experiments that have already been done. But, you have done neither, and you lack a model that can be used to do either. Which means you are not measuring up to the rules of the forum. And the burden of proof is on you to reconcile any dispute. By presenting evidence, or other ways of testing your interpretation. Fine. Present your model, tests and/or evidence that the way you think it works is how it actually works. I see that debate about interaction between mass particles and mass-les particles is in dead end by insisting for evidence. I think that evidence for actions between alleged powerful sub-particles that last in Plank intervals, never will come in light. If in your explanation of interaction of light with metal of mirror scientist have measured interval of the retardation between the moment of fall and the bounce back, I admit that I am wrong. And you may close the thread.

Swansont Evidence, please. -----Evidence? What evidence are you waiting from me? Here is only a different interpretation of facts, which insists in the idea that electric and gravity phenomena are based in existence of Particularity of Matter and Antimatter. Their fields are property of particles and not vice versa as pretends modern physics. Let me make a digression: -----Sure the inventors of microwave ovens have their interpretation of production of microwaves from movement of electrons. They are sure that photons of microwaves are only oscillations of electric and magnetic fields, which exist independent from their sources (electrons). I think different: When the cloud of electrons move around magnetic field of magnetron (as a kind of rotor), some of them bounce from one dent to neighbor dent of stator and in this bounce they split in two sub- particles. Immediately electrons sub-particles find, in space between dents, their partners from sub-particles of antimatter, and engages in a new liaisons creating photons. Now some photons, guided in camera of oven, hit there a metallic fork. Again a change of heart: sub-particles of mater overpopulate free electrons of fork and they push undesired guests in the tips of fork, they bounce again in space, find there new sub-particles of mater and engaged again in photon liaison but now in a different frequency. Or another variant: Some photons make divorce near the circuits of a tester. Sub-particles of matter abandon sub-particles of anti-matter, intrude in circuits of tester as electrons and further as electric current and make needle of tester go out of scale. The facts are real. My interpretations are disputable. Electrons in metal are free to move, and the electric field of the light makes them move, with the lag in response effectively canceling the field that might be transmitted. (unless the frequency is too high for the electrons to respond, in which case the metal becomes transparent to the radiation) The radiation from the electrons in the backward direction is the reflection. ----- I think differently: The gravitation force of repel by sub-particles of matter is very powerful to push backward the photon where exists a sub-particle of antimatter. I have not thinked about transparent mater…

Swansont But this is your speculation. How do you test to see if the particle exists? -----I am not physicist. I am a layman, that think differently about some aspects of modern physic. With a different kind of reasoning. And don’t insist I am right. About the tests of a particle with dimensions of Plank length area, to see if it exist it ridiculous. Even about tests of existence of exotic or non common particles of modern physics I think that they are conglomerate or merger of common particles. Why? Because they disintegrate in common particles. And you are wrong. However, feel free to present a model and evidence that you are right, as per the rules of speculations. -----Maybe even you will change mind if …CERN will find that force between antimatter and matter is repel.

Swansont What is α? Is there any way to test that there is a fundamental particle with this mass? Does this equation even have units of mass? ε0 includes Farads, and I don't see how that goes away, unless it's in whatever α is.----- Constant of fine structure, dimension-less. ----- I suppose that sub-particles which move with C velocity in whatever trajectories you may consider in the same time as a chunk of energy or mass. Exists? As many hypothetic particles there isn’t any sure test for their existence. ----You may use Juanrgas table obout units to findd yourself . I think yes even has. Strange It doesn't appear and disappear. It is a conserved quantity (like mass-energy) and the total charge never changes. ----- I put them under quote. I think if they are conserved they continue to exist as individuals entity.

Swansont I didn't say they moved inside metal as they do in air. The context of this discussion is electrons moving in a conductor, and that is because of the EM interaction taking place inside the wire. Waveguides are another subject. ----- The aim of the thread is in fact a debate - search about one kind of interaction of electromagnetic waves with mass particles ( in this case – movement of electrons in metals). About how they put in movement electric charges if we consider waves as photons, and photons as an unity of coexistence of sub particle matter with sub particle antimatter. The idea is that in contact of metal’s electrons, photons split for a short time in sub-particles of matter which super populate electrons in metallic rope and they push each other toward the extreme, meanwhile antimatter sub particles move forward out-side metallic rope with C velocity in vicinity with partners inside. This find an explanation about how part of energy of e.m.waves transform in thermic energy inside or how part of energy transform in light energy outside in corona phenomena. --- Have you any other explanation how and why photons of light bounce from mirror when came in contact with metal of mirror?

Lyman terms: In the early moments of big bang matter and antimatter annihilated each other? Is this a working hypothesis? The matter "won" and "populates" the present observable Universe. This is one way to view it. We can say that antimatter exists now, in the Universe all around us, in another form? It's effects can be "seen" in principles of the Universe (probably in those un-explained yet). If I say in another "form" you may say is not "matter" (anti-matter) anymore. This is just a perspective. E=mc2 . Energy can constitute as matter (procession of Mercury). If no anti-matter is present currently how can it be artificially created? It's not right to postulate that our present Universe shouldn't be able to sustain anti-matter? Obviously something I got it wrong. But what ? ------ Sorry. I don’t share believing in Big Bang. For me is a huge speculation for the fact that it doesn’t make any explanation for the main process of how it happened. For me is more than absurd creation of something out from nothing. I suppose the other your questions are in the court of moderator.

Swansont Charge is not an "entity", it is a property, and there is zero charge in the system. This was not an explanation of how it happens, because the mechanism itself is not something we can investigate in that way. But we can make models of the behavior, and understand the properties of the interaction(s) that are involved. Gravity is not the interaction involved in this process. === I call it entity because it “ disappears” and “appears” in a precise quantity, it is “something” measured with high accuracy that don’t leave tails behind. Together with ”property” of gravity—and un-separable with it exists in Plank extrapolated “mass” via: M = e / (4*pi*ε0* G)^0.5 = Mplank*sqrt(α) which is the sub-particle, block that build every common particle. A speculation? You bet. It is the only way that a layman can give explanations for some physic phenomena that modern physic wears with mystery.

Swansont No, it doesn't. It moves inside, which is why the signal propagation speed in a conductor is below c. --- Doesn’t electromagnetic waves are guided by metallic pipes? If e.m.waves move inside metal as in air they can’t serve as guides.

Imatfaal Moderator Note I have split off Kramer's speculation regarding the annihilation of matter and antimatter. This thread is on the gravitational behaviour of antimatter and questions regarding a possible "charge" within the idea of gravity - please stick to the topic.----- I thought that debating about antimatter is very normal to make comparisons with matter. To speak about ‘behavior’ of antimatter and to side-skip phenomena of annihilation I see very strange. I see normal too even comparison with electric phenomena, when electricity and gravity are the main property of matter.

Swansont The mass is converted to the photon energy; in e-/e- annihilation, they each have 511 keV, which is the mass energy of an electron. The net charge is zero, so charge is also conserved. ---- In this “ is converted” stand around the mystery of correlation of mass and mass-les particles, of annihilation and de-annihilation of them. “Conversed” is very poor word to give an idea how it happens, how two physics entity ( electric charge, gravity) disappears and appears, how some things, in relative stationary status,--- instantly transformers in two very fast “things” ( if I am not wrong to call them so). And this huge question is cause of speculations.

Thanks Janus! I began a new thread with the same theme because I didn’t know about your response. So, if you don’t see boring that I continue about this debate, please let me explain. I am lost about interactions between mass particles and mass-les particles let say between electrons and photons of the energy and I think this very challenging. Your analogy is interesting because it make comparison between ELASTIC compression wave of rubber balls with ( ? ) electromagnetic wave of electrons. I suppose you understand my lost (?). Electromagnetic wave move outside of metal, in a coaxial rush of photons (With C velocity) and with this it push ( or attract?) electrons inside the metal for quite the same time in the end destination as in the beginning, even electrons drift is in discrepancy with let say C velocity. That make sense. But how this happens that front of electromagnetic wave push, or drag electrons inside when photons of wave move outside, this physics is out of grasp by me. So I have a lay mans hunch that photons and electrons must have something commune to share. This maybe explain how a part of energy lose inside in form of thermal lost or outside in form of corona lost. Anyway thanks for help.

Controversial: A huge discrepancy between drift of electrons and velocity of energy in power lines. When a power line is connected (switched) with a source of energy (voltage) the energy flows quasi instantaneously. Instead, electrons inside the metallic ropes of the power line, move with very low velocity (drift). Some say that carriers of energy are electrons, which indeed are inside the metallic rope of power lines. Others say that carriers of energy are photons outside and around the metallic rope. I think that physics debate of this controversy must be very interesting.

Krash661 -do you know what happens when antimatter comes in the vicinity of matter ? i have to say obviously not. antimatter is unstable ----No! I don’t exactly know what happen when antimatter comes in the vicinity of matter, and I think nobody know for sure, …. except what results afterward. Let see this way: an electron and an antimatter electron (positron) comes in vicinity. How much near each other and what happens there -- in that moment, nobody know for sure.. Afterward the result is : Both “Annihilated”!?, and instead of them two gamma photons appears moving with C velocity in opposite directions. Einstein state that photons are particles and this is proved: they can “de-annihilated” and two matter -- antimatter particles reappears. Where are gone mass? Charges? How they do re-appears? Maybe they that know how is “annihilated” matter have any explanation on how process of “de-annihilation” happens. In my layman different reasoning I say: Nothing is “annihilated” , nothing is “de-annihilated”. I think as matter and antimatter have opposite electric charges that attract teach other they have opposite gravity “ability” to “repel” each other. For stationary observer Suma of electric charges is zero, and so gravity ability of photon. In fact they exist in opposition near each other in perfect equilibrium as it is my book in equilibrium over my table. That only a thought.

My layman hunch about antimatter is that their domain is space; rarely, in so called hole particles, they have been imprisoned inside common matter. Their constituents exist in non organized and dispersed status unable to create steady common antimatter particles---except in marriage with particles of common mater --- in form of photons.

Controversial: A huge discrepancy between drift of electrons and velocity of energy in power lines. When a power line is connected (switched) with a source of energy (voltage) the energy flows quasi instantaneously. Instead, electrons inside the metallic ropes of the power line, move with very low velocity (drift). Some say that carriers of energy are electrons, which indeed are inside the metallic rope of power lines. Others say that carriers of energy are photons outside and around the metallic rope. I think that physics debate of this controversy must be very interesting.

Big nose One can think something is right all they want. Opinions have very little scientific capital. ---Right. I am not one of them. If you want to gain some true scientific capital, you start making predictions and showing that those predictions agree with observations better than any other predictions have agreed before. There is none of that here. ---- Not at all. My hypothesis is not for sell. I don’t need any scientific capital. There are hundred if not thousand scientists, using all kind of math. for tenth of years paid work--- with zero prediction. Are you serious when you blame hypothesis of a lay man that has not prediction? There are observations, such as these particles that accelerate also radiate -- that are not matching your prediction of no radiation. Until you can remedy this, the current theories whose agreement between prediction and observation are much, much closer. And hence, the current theories are much more useful scientifically. ----- That true. A hundred of years scientist assumed that electrons evolve around proton, without any radiation except when bounce from an orbit in an other. Today they have discovered that this is not true. And….? I don’t pretend that my hypothesis is true. I am not Ejnstein. My hypothesis will fall down very easily if experiment about gravity of antimatter will results not repulsive toward the gravity of common mater. My hypothesis is not about common particles you speak above. I have made clear that electron particle and Unique sub particle ( in my hypothesis) “are not the same”. In my hypothesis for unique sub particle, electric charge is inseparable with a huge gravity---both they have property of Plank characters extrapolated for "fact electric charge" ( recall that Plank charge is not the same as fact charge). In electron particle gravity is much - much less potential. Hence not comparison. So, again, you can think something is right all you want. But that doesn't make it meaningful scientifically. That’s right. I am first skeptic about my hypothesis: it undermine to many concept and work done. PureGenius This forum is great but scientists are very unforgiving Kramer good luck with your theory ---Anyway. Thanks for your good will I don’t pretend for a theory.

Thanks Pure Genius. You are the only member that think that i am right.

PureGenius I believe the electromagnetic flux created by the time variable is the answer Black holes are within the microscopic realm you are on the right track Kramer ... I am afraid I can’t grasp your idea. I think is opposite of mine. My main hypothesis is that “unique sub particles” those blocks that structures every thing, every common particle, mass or mass less, exist for ever, are not created -- can not annihilated, they fill an unlimited space which has not an beginning or an end, in an unnumbered amount. The alleged “unique sub-particle” has both electric and gravity ability. Interact with one partner via Coulomb and Newton laws in equilibrium of forces creating so the common particles, moving always with C velocity in whatever trajectory. The magnetic and relativistic phenomena derive plus afterward by the movement of common particles. I suppose you will change mind about “right track” PureGenius I believe the electromagnetic flux created by the time variable is the answer Black holes are within the microscopic realm you are on the right track Kramer ... I am afraid I can’t grasp your idea. I think is opposite of mine. My main hypothesis is that “unique sub particles” those blocks that structures every thing, every common particle, mass or mass less, exist for ever, are not created -- can not annihilated, they fill an unlimited space which has not an beginning or an end, in an unnumbered amount. The alleged “unique sub-particle” has both electric and gravity ability. Interact with one partner via Coulomb and Newton laws in equilibrium of forces, moving always with C velocity in whatever trajectory. The magnetic and relativistic phenomena derive plus afterward by the movement of common particles. I suppose you will change mind about “right track”

Swansont The water response is how fast the pressure wave can propagate. For the electron flow, it's how fast the EM interaction can take place. Thanks for your response, as always very precise ,, and cautious, but I would liked an elaborated one about controversy between velocity of electrons in metal conductors and the flow of energy outside them. I some where, read that electric energy flow outside of electric metallic rope (line) and the rope only gave direction of flow. That fascinated me, but by the lack of mathematic background, I am not able to understand plainly the Pointing vectors, the link of them with the flow of electrons. The truth is that I continue to dig about my favorite hypothesis on sub particles. But this has place only in speculation forum. Imatfaal If you have a problem with the tone of a post or if you think it contravenes our rules then report it - do not take it upon yourself to judge or characterise other members' motivations; ie. challenge the content not the person behin Sorry if my good will is a miss understanding. I don’t judge or characterize other participant in the forum. Yes, I would like that all they see each other as friend not as contender, to learn from those that know more, or that make more sense.

PureGenius The electromagnetic instability is what threw einstien off of his pursuit of Black hole physics. It was too great an unknown during his time surely no fault of his. You are right. Who are we to blame a giant genius who gave the humanity : the equivalence of mass and energy, the particle of energy (Photon),…and the thought that “Quantum Mechanic” is an uncompleted theory.

Big nose Electrons in the wire are just like water in the pipes... the wire is full of electrons, and they are available as soon as the circuit is closed. Just like water stays in the pipe and is available as soon as the valve is opened. Thanks Big nose. Yours is a very interesting analogy. I wanted from you to elaborate a little dipper your comparison as the two questions are a some what different: the yours has to do with mater flow, that is with kinetic energy the second has to do with electromagnetic energy: with photons energy. To make clear my rebut, I would ask: After how time, a pipe ten km long, filled with water, will flow with full pressure when valve is opened? In other words how fast will be transmission of the energy flow in the case of water and in the case of photons? I think that this is not a simple question, I am afraid that here we have to do with interaction between mater and energy, and this is a complicated issue. But a very interesting! Griffon, on 22 Jul 2013 - 07:06 AM, said: The question posed in the OP is quite intesting. As are some of the responses. The 'fact' that electricity is the result of electron flow is one of those things that many people 'know' because that is what they've been taught. There are many similar things that many people believe they 'know'. Our understanding that electricity is the flow of electrons is the result of a whole body of theory supported by observation and experiment. There isn't as far as I know a simple 'clincher' of a fact or observation that could prove to the sceptic that that is how it is. But I might be wrong. I hope someone might suggest one. I think that your post is very thoughtful. And I am very sorry from the answer of Mr. Swansont that take a simple debate --- like personal insult.

I read once that the drift of electrons in conductive material is very slow, some meter per sec. Instead if you close the switch of 300 km power line the flow of energy is quite instantly (sure having in view C). I too wanted to ask if somebody can explain this controversy. ———— Mod note: post and two responses split from http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/77664-electrons-electrons-in-electricity/

Swansont. FE is electric force and FB is magnetic force? (The is a subscript option in the edit bar, it makes it easier to figure out. FE , FB ) Massive particles can never reach c, so there is never a complete doubling or cancellation. Meaning that like charges still repel at any speed v < c ----Well. All right. Seems that FB / FE = V^2 / ε0 * μ0 I thought that as “V” is in square, this mean is not the same case as in Lorentz transformations where we have to do with only “V”, and wondered if “FB” may excel that case. I was wrong. Doesn’t it ring something strange and interesting that magnetic force is linked direct with Einstein “gamma” when electric force-- isn’t ?. I think that next calculation confirm even for the magnetic force hypothesis that electron particle is structured by two Unique particle and that they move with C velocity parallel each other. Unique particle posses all data for those calculations: 1) FBe = (μ*e^2*C^2) / (4*pi*re^2) = 29.05350855 N. 2) FEe = e^2 / ( 4*pi*ε0*re^2) = 29.05350855 N. 3) Fme = (G*Mup^2) / re^2 = 29.0535972 N. 4) Fce = ((C*Vg) / sqrt G))^2 = 29.05350555 N.