Mass

[elas]

"……… the problem of elementary particle masses remains unsolved ".

Malcolm H MacGregor

'The power of Alpha'

 

Here, the acclaimed physicist Lee Smolin provides the first concise and clear overview of current attempts to reconcile these two theories (Relativity and Quantum theory) in a final ‘theory of everything’.

Introduction to ‘Three roads to Quantum Gravity’ by Lee Smolin.

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=46235&page=4

 

On the above forum I submitted the following:

 

The most misleading practice of physicists lies in the use of the negative sign. If two forces act in opposite directions they are referred to (for purely mathematical reasons) as positive and negative when in reality they are two positive quantities opposing each other.

As a result of using the negative symbol, we observe the interaction of two positive forces (apparent force) not the sum of two positive forces.

Construct a table showing the above and it will be seen that dark matter is the difference between actual force and apparent force.

For example where body A has greater mass than body B:

 

force of body A minus force of body B =apparent force (plus quantity)

force of body B minus force of body A =apparent anti-force (negative quantity)

 

The same argument explains the cause of pos. And neg. charge.

In reality there are no negative quantities.

 

The only reply was:

 

insane alien (Genius)

 

Its not misleading at all. it is an appropriate use of vector mathematics.

any confusion over the matter comes from people not understanding the mathematics.

 

Clearly the appropriate use of vector mathematics does not solve the problem of the missing mass or explain the cause of positive and negative charge. The use of positive and negative symbol to indicate the opposing directions in which forces act is a perfectly sound method of explaining actions, but using direction symbols to imply that the force itself actually exists in minus quantities is misleading.

 

Only by considering force (vacuum) and anti-force (the effect of vacuum force on the elasticity of matter) as positive quantity forces can we theorise on the interaction between the two entities (vacuum and matter) that exist in reality. In so doing we find the missing mass, the cause of charge and the cause of the equality of opposite charge in particles that are in all other respects, the same.

 

The graphs below show the two positive quantities in graphs A and B and the interaction of the two positive quantities are shown in graphs B and C. The values on the right are the sum of the force acting on each line measured at regular intervals. Deducting the smaller value from the larger value of graphs A and B reveals the observed values shown in graphs C and D. That is to say that we observe the interaction of forces. Note that interaction does not change the mass value (left hand scale), but it does change the linear force and charge. The linear force values are shown on the right, in graphs A and B the values (red and blue) differ; but interaction produces two equal values (green) in figs C and D hence we observe e+ and e- as having equal, but opposite, charge values.

 

[Sha31]

Hey there,

 

By some chance I ended up reading some post of yours from couple of years ago and I noticed your theory is amazingly similar to some of mine conclusions. Though interestingly, your approach and my approach is completely different which makes similarities in conclusions even more intriguing.

 

 

I like what you said here:

 

Vacuum force and anti-vacuum force (matter) waves naturally form planes at right angle to each other (i.e. ‘north to south and equatorial’ or technically' date=' ‘transverse and longitudinal’) the vacuum force is responsible for magnetic action while the matter is responsible for the electric force. The two actions combined cause particles to move towards points of equal density (gravitational action).

[/quote']

 

...though while you sometimes use concepts of special relativity and vacuum, my conclusions come from classical electromagnetism, mainly applications of Lorentz force, and so instead of vacuum I have Aether. Have a look at it here: http://polarelephant.blogspot.com/

 

 

 

Anyway, about the opening post. I'm not quite sure who said what, so could you summarize quickly what is the argument and what is contra-argument? Additionally, can you explain why would electric and magnetic opposite poles attract, while with gravity like poles attract?

[elas]

Sha31

 

I am currently deep into:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38674

where there is much work still to be done and I hope to keep the ball rolling.

 

There is also much I would like to say in response to your reply, but it will be a few days before I can write at length. Meanwhile a comment on the opening post.

 

I stated in the course of a different debate that the way physicists use minus quantities such as negative charge and negative mass is incorrect. That is to say that (as in all other professions) physicists should regard such negative terms as implying that something real is missing and not that the minus quantity itself is a reality.

 

This is illustrated above in graph form where I show how two positive quantities interact to produce a single negative quantity and a single positive quantity. Comparison of 'A and B' with 'C and D' shows how to arrive at the missing mass.

Comparison of 'A and C' with 'B and D' shows the origin of particle and anti-particle and of positive and negative charge.

 

Note that the balanced field structure used to illustrate this proposition is the same as the balanced field structure used to define electron shell structure on the page referred to above.

 

Not mentioned on either page is the link with wavelength and TQHE, but I will deal with these as soon as I can write at length,

elas

[Sha31]

I stated in the course of a different debate that the way physicists use minus quantities such as negative charge and negative mass is incorrect. That is to say that (as in all other professions) physicists should regard such negative terms as implying that something real is missing and not that the minus quantity itself is a reality.

 

Physicists actually do not refer to physical entities at all' date=' sign is not a description of some material property, it is a description of the EFFECT, i.e. forces of attraction/repulsion, it's a three-dimensional description of motion, action-reaction. So, it is actually mathematical and geometrical property referring to DIRECTION, it has to do with matrix and vector math rather than being a statement about structural make-up of the matter.

 

 

When looking at the opposite magnetic fields, they only seem to be twirling in different directions, so how do you explain this magnetic interaction with the lack and excess of something? By the way, in my theory magnetic fields are just an effect of motion of electric fields through Aether, like this:

 

 

[img']http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Airplane_vortex_edit.jpg/250px-Airplane_vortex_edit.jpg[/img]

 

 

...so, the "lack and excess" in my theory comes from density differences due to kinetic pressure, compressibility and viscosity of aether (vacuum), where the force will actually have inward radial direction, it will "suck in" like tornadoes and whirlpools do, because of the difference in density distribution. But then, this force can have different directions, both inward and outward regardless of it's original outward flux of the medium and inward force, and so these entities (dynamic itself) like solitons (whirlpools) can both attract and repel, depending on the DIRECTION of their rotation.

 

 

 

This is illustrated above in graph form where I show how two positive quantities interact to produce a single negative quantity and a single positive quantity. Comparison of 'A and B' with 'C and D' shows how to arrive at the missing mass.

Comparison of 'A and C' with 'B and D' shows the origin of particle and anti-particle and of positive and negative charge.

 

Note that the balanced field structure used to illustrate this proposition is the same as the balanced field structure used to define electron shell structure on the page referred to above.

 

Ok, I don't see anything wrong with that. But, I also don't see what do you think was wrong to begin with. It's all about direction of displacement, about direction of the force. You might be right, and all that might be the result of only one particle and one force, but the current physics is simply not talking on that level at all, they only describe the "surface" (forces and their directions), while you're trying to describe the essence, so I do not see there is actual disagreement really.

[elas]

In my opinion you have got it exactly right, but I am constantly accused of being anti-QT when actually QT is about the mathematical prediction of actions and my proposals are about the mathematical structure of things; the two should be complementary. Will get down to a longer reply today.

Edited December 15, 2009 by elas