The elephant in the room

[occam]

The “Elephant in the room” is a phenomenon which the community insists is not there.

If suggested the community can offer an absolute experimental proof that this cannot exist.

In the case of quantum theory the “Elephant” is the other “Planck’s constant”.

Simply, if E =hf, and E = mc^2, there should be another “Planck constant” for mass.

This has to be M = h(m)f , where h(m) = h/c^2 = 7.372496-51 kg.s.

The consequences of this are described in the attachment.

 

The upload limit does not allow for the supporting calculation file. please contact me if you want this.

“occam”

oboffd.pdf

[GutZ]

Isn't planck units just a way to normalize values to a number that is easy to use?

 

Like the speed of light © = 299 792 458 m / s

 

If that is true wouldn't you need a value first before making another planck constant. What significant for making one for mass?

[Daecon]

I think you're several years too late:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_mass

[insane_alien]

no, what he wants do do is relate mass and frequency.

 

by rearranging those two equations all you'd get is the equivalent mass of a photon of frequency f. this is nothing new, infact, i was taught this in highschool. the only elephant in the room is that you haven't actually discovered anything.

 

this is basic qm.

 

unless you mean something like the debroglie wavelength which is the wavelegnth of a moving particle but that depends on momentum not mass.

[occam]

Since I discuss in the paper both the Wikipedia definition of Planck units, and the DeBroglie equation, I gather that you have not bothered to read the attachment.

The elephant is still there

occam

[Bignose]

Since I discuss in the paper both the Wikipedia definition of Planck units, and the DeBroglie equation, I gather that you have not bothered to read the attachment.

The elephant is still there

occam

 

Ooooooooooooooooooo, if it's in red, then it must be bad. I am well conditioned to know that red is bad. Very very bad.

 

Seriously, though. I don't open strange websites or attachments of unknown members. There is just too much risk (and no, no amount of assurance that it doesn't contain a virus is going to change my mind). So, why don't you actually post some of your discussion instead of just telling us to look at your attachment?

[occam]

 

Seriously, though. I don't open strange websites or attachments of unknown members. There is just too much risk (and no, no amount of assurance that it doesn't contain a virus is going to change my mind). So, why don't you actually post some of your discussion instead of just telling us to look at your attachment?

 

I appreciate your concern! however the document is a 36 page Pdf.You could ask members who have opened the attachment for assurances that it does not contain anything inimical.

 

The proposition discussed is:

"That the a fundamental “entity” defined by Planck’s constant, can be described as a Boson, which not only carries the coulomb force, but necessarily also carries the gravitational force. So that when measured over time, can manifest as Energy or Mass.

“space-time” by the same rule is “volume per second” and The “Planck constant” for this is “volume-seconds”. “Space curvature” arises from the variation in displacement."

 

My problem is actually getting anyone to read the paper, rather than reject the concept out of hand.

 

The reason fror the pseudonym is that I want the proposition to be considered on its merits rather than who I am or what I do.

 

 

 

occam