Equivalence of Mass and Charge

[mooeypoo]

"If you read some of the OPs other posts you will see he is very explicit in stating that mass is charge, and charge only. He has yet to explain why leptons (or quarks) of two generations with the same charge and spin have different masses or why leptons are much less massive than baryons.

"

 

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

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

An even better question: How would I go about finding my mass in Coulombs?

[mooeypoo]

An even better question: How would I go about finding my mass in Coulombs?

 

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?

[jerrygg38]

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: Although you could change all the mechanical equations of physics into electrical conversion terms, it would be pointless. It is much easier to describe the mechanical world in terms of kilograms, meters, and seconds. It is much easier to describe the electrical world in terms of coulombs, meters, and seconds.

 

I would not use the conversion table to replace any mechanical formula. It only helps in the understanding of gravity in which the electrical equations are much simplier. However we could replace coulombs or kilograms with radians per second for a wave solution such as for string theory.

 

In general all my equations are standard physics with the exception of the conversion charts, the equations for gravity and the cycle time of the universe, the radius of the universe, and a few other instances.

My analysis of the energy of the proton has little to do with the dot-wave theory and more to do with the Einsteinian energy of the subparticle.

 

An even better question: How would I go about finding my mass in Coulombs?

 

JG: It would serve no purpose to change our standards of measurement.

 

Who the heck taught you that?? Where did you read that? where are you getting this from!?

 

JG: Most of my data comes from my school textbooks. Weidner & Sells Elementary Modern Physics Allyn & Bacon 1960. Plus many electrical textbooks. The Doppler Mass equations come from the MIT study which was confirmed by some other universities. (I may not have posted that yet) The Einsteinian mass increase in the Bohr Orbit is simply calculated using his formula. My Dot-wave unified field theory contains basic ordinary physics plus the dot-wave analysis.

 

 

"Do these two look the same to you?"

 

JG: No mass and charge do not look the same to me. They are different sister properties of the elemental structure of the universe. Since a plus charge and a minus charge can produce mass, they have the same units. Thus kilograms and coulombs are the same thing. That does not mean I can write equations substituting kilograms for coulombs. One kilogram does not equal one coulomb. We must maintain standard equations for this work.

Thus F = G MM/RR can only be calculated using kilograms, meters, and the gravitational constant. It is only when we subdivide matter into the smallest subparticles that we can use the relationship between mass and charge.

 

"If you claim mass is equal to charge, you must explain and prove it. "

 

 

JG: I explain things. I show how things work. Proving things to others require their interest in accepting new ideas.

 

"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."

 

JG: Sure BSEE (Summa Cum Laude) from Brooklyn Polytechnic and I never learned any physics. Never got less than 100 on any science test. The only 100 on the Electrical Comprehensive exam in 1956.

Designer of the SDC/GMP for the 5 inch guns on the Aegis class destroyers which the Navy labeled the Maytag since it worked the first time and everytime.

Did the lighting for the Long Island Expressway. Did the control logic design for the fuel pumping station at Kenedy airport for the Port of NY Authority.

Solved many problems for the Polaris system. the Nexrad system for Sperry which later was Unisys.

I build things that work. Perhaps I am not as good as expressing my ideas so others can understand. However I do have some people who read my books and want more.

 

"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."

 

JG: The valid premise is that the universe is simple. It is composed of only three fundamental things. A plus dot a minus dot and a bipolar dot. The first two are electrical and the last is mechanical.

 

 

"You can't seriously expect us to treat you seriously when your claims are just ridiculously unfounded and ignore truth."

 

JG: That is your choice. I spent 27 years working out my equations. Some people like them. Others chose to ignor them. There is nothing that I can do about that.

Edited October 28, 2008 by swansont
multiple post merged; swansont: adjust quote tags and turned volume down

[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.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

JG: It would serve no purpose to change our standards of measurement.

 

I don't really care if it serves a purpose. It's just intellectual curiosity. If Coulombs are equivalent to kilograms, how would I convert from one to the other?

[swansont]

I previously asked "How would one, in principle, falsify the dot-wave hypothesis?"

 

Until that is addressed, there is no point in further discussion.