Mass: constant work of space-time?

[Guest mister y]

Hello,

 

What do you think about this theory?

 

www.webcom.com/musics/mass.pdf

 

From the definitions of Planck units of length and time is deduced a correspondence between mass and time equal to [tex]m=@'t[/tex], where @' is a constant that has dimension of force. The similarity of this equation with the equation [tex]l=ct[/tex], could allows us to extrapolate a possible physical meaning for this correspondence

[bascule]

Planck length is the distance light travels in one Planck time. I don't think there's anything profound or striking about that.

[Guest mister y]

Planck length is the distance light travels in one Planck time. I don't think there's anything profound or striking about that.

Yes, this is a consequence of

l=ct

but I'm talking a about

m=@'t

where @' is the Planck force in SL units (unit of lenght=second-light)

What would be the physical interpretation of this equation?

this relation can also be writen as:

m=@'l

Planck mass is the work (force*lenght) of Planck force to "move" ....?.... l seconds-light?

Planck force as maximum force in the universe and constant for all observers?

[Johnny5]

Hello' date='

 

What do you think about this theory?

 

www.webcom.com/musics/mass.pdf

 

From the definitions of Planck units of length and time is deduced a correspondence between mass and time equal to [tex]m=@'t[/tex], where @' is a constant that has dimension of force. The similarity of this equation with the equation [tex]l=ct[/tex], could allows us to extrapolate a possible physical meaning for this correspondence

 

 

 

I can't understand it, it's in spanish. Do you speak spanish? If not why in the world would you read that?

 

As for the other things you are trying to say, inertial mass isn't supposed to be a function of time.

 

Do you know the differential calculus? If so, I can show you in what sense mass isn't a function of time.

[Guest mister y]

I can't understand it, it's in spanish. Do you speak spanish? If not why in the world would you read that?

Yes, I am from Barcelona (catalan). Sorry, my english is not very good

 

As for the other things you are trying to say, inertial mass isn't supposed to be a function of time.

I'm trying to say that mass IS a function of time (other than the de Boglie relation with the constant h, this one is with the constant G)

If you use second-light as lenght unit (SL units) then c=1

Is easily to see from the definitions of Planck lenght (l), Planck time (t) and Planck mass (m) that

l=t=G'm

(where G' is the Gravitational constant in SL units)

Could be this a unknown relation between mass, lenght and time?

Also is interesting to see that 1/G' (@') has the value of the force of Planck!

 

 

Do you know the differential calculus? If so, I can show you in what sense mass isn't a function of time.

I studied differential calculus more than 30 years ago when I sudied two years of mathematics, so probably I will understand something. But, is latex supported by this forum?

 

llorenç

[5614]

LaTeX is currently down, you need to use [ math ] [ /math ] tags, without the spaces, but as I said, it won't work at the moment because LaTeX is not working, it should be working soon though.