Gravity energy --- mass energy two different concepts

[Kramer]

 

Gravity energy --- mass energy, two different concepts.

Speculation by a lay-man

Here are four equations, three of them “relative static” potential energy, between two electric charges and what derive from them, fourth rest energy of electron particle.

1) - - - - ( e / (sqrt (4 * pi * ε ) ) ^2 / Re = 8.187104683*10^-14 Joul

2) - - - - ( sqrt ( G) * (Mpl *sqrt(α) ) ^ 2) / Re = 8.187104662*10*-14 Joul

3) - - - - ( e / (sqrt ( 4 * pi * ε * G) ) ^ 2 * G / Re = 8.187104683*10^-14 Joul

4) - - - ( me * C^2) = (Mpl * C^2) * (Lpl / Re) = 8.187104145* 10^-14 Joul

Note:

1-Equation (3) is to show why formal “gravity potential energy” is equal electric potential energy, if taken in consideration constants of gravity field and constant of fine structure.
2- “Re” --- classic radius of electron particle.

Eq.(5) ------- Mpl * sqrt(α) = e / sqrt ( 4 * pi * ε0 * G ) = Mun.

Here Mpl*sqrt(α) = “Mun.” is equivalence “mass” of alleged “unique sub particle”

Electric potential energy is equal “gravity potential energy of alleged Plank mass “Mpl*sqrt(α)”.
And both of them are equal potential static energy of electron particles mass “me”.
So “gravity potential energy of a structure of two Plank “mass* sqrt α”, is equal the potential energy of two electric charges and is equal energy of the electron particle, in rest status, even it that has a mass “me” which is 2.041*10^21 time less than Plank mass (”Mpl”).

Speculation by a lay-man:
1- electron particle is structured in “rest status” by two sub-particles as in Eq.(5).
2- Sub-particle “Mun.” may be considered as a “ boson ?”, instead and different from “+,- W” or “Higgs”, -- able to build structure for all kind of common particles, mass or mass-less.
3- Static status is only “relative toward each other” because the sub-particles supposed to move always in spherical trajectories with C velocity, and after, with V velocity as whole when associated with one third anti matter sub-particle Mun.

 

[Sensei]

1) - - - - ( e / (sqrt (4 * pi * ε ) ) ^2 / Re = 8.187104683*10^-14 Joul

2) - - - - ( sqrt ( G) * (Mpl *sqrt(α) ) ^ 2) / Re = 8.187104662*10*-14 Joul

3) - - - - ( e / (sqrt ( 4 * pi * ε * G) ) ^ 2 * G / Re = 8.187104683*10^-14 Joul

4) - - - ( me * C^2) = (Mpl * C^2) * (Lpl / Re) = 8.187104145* 10^-14 Joul

Not "Joul", but "Joules"

 

Here is yet another equation:

 

[latex]E = h * f_C = 6.62607*10^{-34} J*s * 1.23559*10^{20} Hz \approx 8.1871*10^{-14} Joules[/latex]

 

[latex]\frac{8.1871*10^{-14} Joules}{1.602*10^{-19} C} \approx 510998.928 eV \approx 511 keV \approx 0.511 MeV[/latex]

 

Here Mpl*sqrt(α) = Mun. is equivalence mass of alleged unique sub particle

[latex]Mp = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar*c}{G}} = \sqrt{\frac{1.0545718*10^{-34}*299792458}{6.67*10^{-11}}} = 2.17713575*10^{-8} kg[/latex]

 

Do you realize it's mass of billions * billions * 13 protons?

 

[latex]Mp * \sqrt{\alpha} = 1.8543368*10^{-9} kg[/latex]

 

I don't doubt you do, and completely doesn't care about it...

 

1- electron particle is structured in rest status by two sub-particles as in Eq.(5).

I assume their charges must be -1e and 0e?

And then positron has +1e and 0e?

Otherwise charges wouldn't match completely.

 

2- Sub-particle Mun. may be considered as a boson ?,

Bosons have full integer spins, f.e. 0, 1.

How two bosons joined together can give spin 1/2 ?

 

If we would have 1/2 and +-1/2 it can end up 0, or 1.

But if they're integer we will never end up with fractions..

 

ps. It would be good if you learn Latex

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LaTeX/Mathematics

To show equations in proper math friendly way.

 

ps2. Learn about mesons. How mesons are created, and how they decay.

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

 

ps3. Learn about baryons. How baryons are created, and how they decay. The only two stable baryons are proton and antiproton.

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

Edited September 15, 2014 by Sensei

[swansont]

 

 

3) - - - - ( e / (sqrt ( 4 * pi * ε * G) ) ^ 2 * G / Re = 8.187104683*10^-14 Joul

…

 

1-Equation (3) is to show why formal “gravity potential energy” is equal electric potential energy, if taken in consideration constants of gravity field and constant

 

 

All you did here was multiply and divide by G, which cancels. Any claim that this has anything to do with gravity is bogus.

[Kramer]

Sensei

Do you realize it's mass of billions * billions * 13 protons?

(first: note that this is a speculation about the structure of common particles by means of two sub particles)

Now sure “I realize”, but you are speaking about the “Mass” of “Plank particle”

mpl = Empl. / C^2 =

= (sqrt(G) * Mpl.*sqrt(α) *( sqrt(G) * Mpl.sqrt(α) / ( Lpl.*sqrt(α)* C^2) =

= Mpl. (α) * ((G*Mpl. / Lpl.) / C^2) = Mpl (α) *1

Note:

Plank area is the only that has “mass particle” “mpl’. equal with “gravity sub particle “Mpl” which I think are two different concept.

Now compare above with mass of electron particle (me) :

1) me = Eme / C^2 =

= (( sqrt(G) * Mpl. *sqrt(α) * sqrt(G)*Mpl.*sqrt (α) ) / (Re * C^2)

2) me = Eme / C^2 = (( e / sqrt(4*pi*ε) * (e / sqrt(4*pi*ε) ) / ( Re *C^2)

3) me = Eme / C^2 = (( h * ( C / (2*pi / α) * Re ) ) / C^2 ……..

Mass of a particle is considered equal energy / C^2. But what gave to mass the gravity property?

Energy of a common particle is the energy created by interaction of two unique sub particles. The amount of energy is inverse proportional with distance between two sub-particles)


I don't doubt you do, and completely doesn't care about it...

I do care a lot. This thread is just about this “monstrous” Mpl*sqrt(α) as a property of alleged sub particle, which has the duty to create gravity energy on the common particles, the same as the electric charge, create electric energy.
I want to ask:

Why, you don’t rise browns about: e / (4*pi*ε) ^ 0.5 but doubt about sqrt(G )*Mpl.* sqrt(α)
Aren’t they the same as the amount? And their results aren’t with the same unity?

Electric charge (of alleged sub-particle) act in a space which posses constant “epsilon zero”, result of electric charges (F/m).
Mpl.*sqrt(α) (of alleged sub-particle) act in a space which posses constant of gravity (G).
Both acting in unison create one--two face energy: electric and gravity energy.

And the mass of particle, that has gravity property, isn’t equal energy divided by C^2?

What gave mass of particles gravity? Why not, gravity energy created by sub-particles. Why suppose it is Higgs?

Electric charge (of alleged sub-particle) act in a space which posses constant “epsilon zero”, result of electric charges (F/m).
Mpl.*sqrt(α) (of alleged sub-particle) act in a space which posses constant of gravity (G).

Both are in the same foot.

 

I assume their charges must be -1e and 0e?
And then positron has +1e and 0e?
Otherwise charges wouldn't match completely.
--- Right rebut.

I suppose that “two sub-particle” evolve toward each other in spherical trajectories; create a sphere of their existence which is in rest as whole. This is a common particle in rest status. But nobody has found any particle in rest status. They as whole are always in relative movements. I suppose that relative movements are created by a third sub-particle from an antineutrino (antimatter), or from any photon.
This antimatter sub-particle with “one” of matter sub-particles, create a photon that evolve around sphere like Broil wave, which we measure as Compton wave. So in total we have:

For electron (--) + (--) + (+) = (--) + photon

For proton (+) + (+) + (--) = (+) + photon

? Bosons have full integer spins, f.e. 0, 1.
How two bosons joined together can give spin 1/2 ?

If we would have 1/2 and +-1/2 it can end up 0, or 1.
But if they're integer we will never end up with fractions..

Truly I have not treat this problem; for my hypothesis I tried to fit sign of electric charges and sign of sqrt(G) in right correspondence.

Swanson

All you did here was multiply and divide by G, which cancels. Any claim that this has anything to do with gravity is bogus

----- They are brought here to show that gravity energy and electric energy, of two electric charges and two Plank gravity charges (mass), are equivalent. For Plank area this is indisputable that this fit for Plank length.
But seems that this fit even for whatever distance. And it is the augments of distance between charges that causes diminish of the energy, and with this the mass of common particles.

We have e / ε0 . There is not any cancellation between electric charges of particle with electric charges of space. I think the same for gravity.

 

[swansont]

[

Swanson

All you did here was multiply and divide by G, which cancels. Any claim that this has anything to do with gravity is bogus

----- They are brought here to show that gravity energy and electric energy, of two electric charges and two Plank gravity charges (mass), are equivalent. For Plank area this is indisputable that this fit for Plank length.

But seems that this fit even for whatever distance. And it is the augments of distance between charges that causes diminish of the energy, and with this the mass of common particles.

We have e / ε0 . There is not any cancellation betweenelectric charges of particle with electric charges of space. I think the same for gravity.

[/size]

But it doesn't show anything of the sort. Any more than multiplying and dividing by some biological constant means there's an equivalence between electrostatics and evolution

[Kramer]

 

Swanson

Any more than multiplying and dividing by some biological constant means there's an equivalence between electrostatics and evolution

----- I won’t be surprised. Branch sciences of nature are inter-twined. What I don’t believe is that only “watching a phenomena your brain may change it outcome”.
As for multiplying and dividing constants in physic, that is a common play for all physicists, in all times. The rule is that “ result must respects “unities”

 

Swanson

Any more than multiplying and dividing by some biological constant means there's an equivalence between electrostatics and evolution
----- I won’t be surprised. Branch sciences of nature are inter-twined. What I don’t believe is that only “watching a phenomena your brain may change it outcome”.
As for multiplying and dividing constants in physic, that is a common play for all physicists, in al times. The rule is that “ result must respects “unities”

[swansont]

Swanson

Any more than multiplying and dividing by some biological constant means there's an equivalence between electrostatics and evolution[/size]

 

----- I won’t be surprised. Branch sciences of nature are inter-twined.

 

I obviously didn't exaggerate enough. I thought I had given a ridiculous example. Evolution following an inverse-square law makes so much sense.

 

What I don’t believe is that only “watching a phenomena your brain may change it outcome”.

It's good that you don't believe in straw-man versions of physics.

 

As for multiplying and dividing constants in physic, that is a common play for all physicists, in all times. The rule is that “ result must respects “unities”[/size]

 

A great example of cargo cult science

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

[Sensei]

 

Do you realize it's mass of billions * billions * 13 protons?

(first: note that this is a speculation about the structure of common particles by means of two sub particles)

 

 

What is in that case structure of mesons:

 

[latex]\pi^0[/latex] neutral pion

[latex]\pi^+[/latex] charged pion+

[latex]\pi^-[/latex] charged pion-

 

[latex]K^0S[/latex] neutral kaon short version

[latex]K^0L[/latex] neutral kaon long version

[latex]K^+[/latex] charged kaon+

[latex]K^-[/latex] charged kaon-

 

Leptons 2nd generation:

[latex]\mu^+[/latex] charged muon+

[latex]\mu^-[/latex] charged muon-

 

There is 120+ mesons, and 130+ baryons that you have no idea about their existence..

 

Now sure “I realize”, but you are speaking about the “Mass” of “Plank particle”

 

"I am speaking about Planck particle"? Not at all.. It's hypothetical particle, that never has been found experimentally..

 

But what gave to mass the gravity property?

 

Who said it's true?

What if attraction is property of any energy?

Including photons, neutrinos or other neutral particles?

But they travel with speed of light (or close to), so their influence is diminishing quickly (which disallows/make it hard to perform experiments with them)..

 

Newton's gravity equation is:

 

[latex]F = \frac{m_1 * m_2 * G}{r^2}[/latex]

 

[latex]m = \frac{E}{c^2}[/latex]

 

Insert one in another and you will get:

 

[latex]F = \frac{E_1 * E_2 * G}{c^2*c^2*r^2}[/latex]

 

I do care a lot. This thread is just about this “monstrous” Mpl*sqrt(α) as a property of alleged sub particle, which has the duty to create gravity energy on the common particles, the same as the electric charge, create electric energy.

I doubt you know how electricity works..

f.e. if you have NiMH AA battery-accumulator with U = 1.25 V, and 1400 mAh, what does it mean?

Are you truly be able to tell me quantity of electrons it has? And amount of energy it can release?

 

1400 mAh is 1.4 Ah, it's unit C - Coulombs. 1.4A * 3600s = 5040 C

Charges are quantized every e, one electron has Q = 1e = 1.602*10^-19 C

So, battery with Q=5040 C has 5040 C/1.602*10^-19 C = 3.1461*10^22 electrons (on negative electrode, and similar quantity of "holes" (positive ions) on positive electrode).

Each electron in U=1.25 V has kinetic energy 1.25 eV (E=1.25*1.602*10^-19 = ~2*10^-19 J), which it can spend on heating, creating photon or other way "lose" while passing through closed circuit between negative and positive electrode.

 

In total energy one fully charged battery has is 5040 C * 1.25 V = 6300 J

(~2*10^-19 J (energy of single electron) * 3.1461*10^22 (quantity of electrons) = 6300 J)

It's energy enough for heating 19 grams of water from 20 C -> 100 C.

To make cup of tea (250g) you would need 13-14 such batteries/accumulators.

 

 

 

Truly I have not treat this problem; for my hypothesis I tried to fit sign of electric charges and sign of sqrt(G) in right correspondence.

You have to work with everything at the same time (if they have substructure):

- substructure of photon,

- substructure of neutrinos,

- substructure of electron/positron,

- substructure of muons/tau,

- substructure of mesons,

- substructure of baryons,

 

I gave you lecture for months, in previous post. Read about every single meson, and baryon, from the list.. How they're created, how they decay. The heavier they're the more ways they can decay.. Proton and antiproton annihilation at rest is VERY complicated, see attached picture:

 

 

 

The most common path 35-36% is [latex]\pi^+ \pi^- + \pi^0 + \pi^0 + .....[/latex]

Edited September 17, 2014 by Sensei

[Kramer]

 

Swansont

I obviously didn't exaggerate enough. I thought I had given a ridiculous example. Evolution following an inverse-square law makes so much sense.

---- Now your sarcasm is going too far. Your “comparison with evolution” in this thread is what you hate: nothing else but a straw man. About inverse - square law in evolution, I don’t catch your humor. What I know is that in nature every thing began from simplest to most complicated, from smallest to enormous. Evolution is not an exception to those rule, it began from simplest inorganic molecules to most complicated organic. In this meaning evolution is under rules of particles physics.

It's good that you don't believe in straw-man versions of physics.

---- E no ser, are not straw man versions. Instead, nevertheless camouflaged.

A great example of cargo cult science.

----- Pardon my shallow, I don’t catch the meaning of your humor.

I support my sentence, that you rebutted, because i have been surprised that celebrity scientists divide and multiply whole formulas of energies striped by common their radius. Because up and down, it is canceled.

Sensei

What is in that case structure of mesons:
neutral pion ---- = 2* γ = 2* (( - e / - g) + ( + e / + g)) = 2 * (Mun1+ Mun2)

---- = (- me + (+ me)) = (2*(-e/-g)) + ( 2* (+e/+g)) = 2 * Mun1 + 2 * Mun2

Summa active inside of (e) = 4 Summa active for outside = 0

Summa active inside of (g) = 4 Summa active for outside = 0

charged pion+ ----- = μ+ + mνμ~ = (me+ + mνe + mνμ~) + mνμ =

= 2*(M2~) + (M1 +M3) + (M2~ +M4~) + (M1 +M3) =

= (2*( +e/+g ) + ((-e/-g) +(+e/-g)) +((+e/+g) + (-e/+g))) + ((-e/+g)... +(+e/+g))

Summa active inside of (e) = 8 Suma active for outside in static status =2*(+e)
Suma active inside of (g) = 8 summa active for outside in static status = 4*g

 

 

= ( (2*Mun1) + (Mun2 +Mun4) + (Mun1 +Mun3) ) + (Mun1+Mun3)

( - e + ~νe + νμ ) + ( νμ )

= 4*Mun1 + 1*Mun2 + 2*Mun3 + Mun4 =
= 4* ( -e/-g) + 1*( +e/+g) + 2+ (+e/+g) + (-e/+g)

charged pion-

neutral kaon short version
neutral kaon long version
charged kaon+
charged kaon-

Leptons 2nd generation:
charged muon+
charged muon-



There is 120+ mesons, and 130+ baryons that you have no idea about their existence..

----- O my my! Are really so mach? I had no idea!

"I am speaking about Planck particle"? Not at all.. It's hypothetical particle, that never has been found experimentally..
----That true. And I am sure never will be found. Even thought they are components of whatever common particle. Are very-very tiny, their radius Run. = Lpl.* sqrt(α)

Who said it's true?

---Nobody
What if attraction is property of any energy?

---I think gravity energy create and attract mass of particles.
Including photons, neutrinos or other neutral particles?
But they travel with speed of light (or close to), so their influence is diminishing quickly (which disallows/make it hard to perform experiments with them)..

Newton's gravity equation is:

F = (E1*E2*G) / (C^2*C^2*r^2)

- In my hypothesis:

F = ((G*Mu^2) / R1) * ((G*Mu^2) / R2)) * G / (C^2 * C^2 * r^2)

E1 * E2

But ((G*Mu^2 * Ru) / ( Ru / R1) = (G*Mu / Ru) * (Mu * Ru /R1) = C^2 * m1

So: F = (C^2 * m1) * (C^2 *m2) * G / (C^2*C^2*r^2)= m1*m2*G / r^2
I don’t see any thing wrong

Insert one in another and you will get:


doubt you know how electricity works..

------ Any-way, hold your doubt.
f.e. if you have NiMH AA battery-accumulator with U = 1.25 V, and 1400 mAh, what does it mean?
Are you truly be able to tell me quantity of electrons it has? And amount of energy it can release?
---- Now don’t be ridiculous.

You have to work with everything at the same time (if they have substructure):
- substructure of photon = (-e / - g) + (+e / + g) => Σ(e) = 0, Σ(g) = 0
- substructure of neutrinos, = ( - e / - g) + ( + e / -g ) => Σ(-e) =0. Σ(-g) =2
- substructure of electron/positron,= ((- e /- g) + (- e / - g)) / ((+e /+g) +(+e /+g))

[swansont]

Swansont

I obviously didn't exaggerate enough. I thought I had given a ridiculous example. Evolution following an inverse-square law makes so much sense.

---- Now your sarcasm is going too far. Your “comparison with evolution” in this thread is what you hate: nothing else but a straw man. About inverse - square law in evolution, I don’t catch your humor. What I know is that in nature every thing began from simplest to most complicated, from smallest to enormous. Evolution is not an exception to those rule, it began from simplest inorganic molecules to most complicated organic. In this meaning evolution is under rules of particles physics.

 

I guess that puts your understanding of evolution at the same level as that of physics, and saying that evolution is under the rules of physics is not the same kind of claim as saying that electrostatics and gravity are connected.

 

It's good that you don't believe in straw-man versions of physics.

---- E no ser, are not straw man versions. Instead, nevertheless camouflaged.

“watching a phenomena your brain may change it outcome” is not part of physics. But you are making the claim in a physics discussion, so it must represent a straw man of physics.

 

A great example of cargo cult science.

----- Pardon my shallow, I don’t catch the meaning of your humor.

I support my sentence, that you rebutted, because i have been surprised that celebrity scientists divide and multiply whole formulas of energies striped by common their radius. Because up and down, it is canceled.

 

 

You see it done, but you evidently don't understand the meaning behind it, and/or derive meaning that isn't there. Just like cargo cults, building straw airports, thinking it will attract airplane traffic.

[Sensei]

Sensei

What is in that case structure of mesons:

neutral pion ---- = 2* γ = 2* (( - e / - g) + ( + e / + g)) = 2 * (Mun1+ Mun2)

---- = (- me + (+ me)) = (2*(-e/-g)) + ( 2* (+e/+g)) = 2 * Mun1 + 2 * Mun2

Summa active inside of (e) = 4 Summa active for outside = 0

Summa active inside of (g) = 4 Summa active for outside = 0

 

charged pion+ ----- = μ+ + mνμ~ = (me+ + mνe + mνμ~) + mνμ =

= 2*(M2~) + (M1 +M3) + (M2~ +M4~) + (M1 +M3) =

= (2*( +e/+g ) + ((-e/-g) +(+e/-g)) +((+e/+g) + (-e/+g))) + ((-e/+g)... +(+e/+g))

Summa active inside of (e) = 8 Suma active for outside in static status =2*(+e)

Suma active inside of (g) = 8 summa active for outside in static status = 4*g

 

 

= ( (2*Mun1) + (Mun2 +Mun4) + (Mun1 +Mun3) ) + (Mun1+Mun3)

( - e + ~νe + νμ ) + ( νμ )

= 4*Mun1 + 1*Mun2 + 2*Mun3 + Mun4 =

= 4* ( -e/-g) + 1*( +e/+g) + 2+ (+e/+g) + (-e/+g)

Sorry, but WTF does it mean?

 

I have bloody no idea.. (and you probably as well)

 

Maybe image would be more helpful in visualizing it.. Like Feynman lines, showing how udd is changing to udu + e- + Ve..

 

Pion+ is made of 16 sub-particles?

And pion0 is made of 8 sub-particles?

 

You know that Pion+ can decay to Pion0 and positron and neutrino, right?

 

- substructure of photon = (-e / - g) + (+e / + g) => Σ(e) = 0, Σ(g) = 0

- substructure of neutrinos, = ( - e / - g) + ( + e / -g ) => Σ(-e) =0. Σ(-g) =2

- substructure of electron/positron,= ((- e /- g) + (- e / - g)) / ((+e /+g) +(+e /+g))

If pion+ will decay to pion0, and then pion0 further to 2 gammas in your model I see total g = 0

[latex]\pi^+ \rightarrow \gamma + \gamma + e^+ + Ve[/latex]

 

Meantime if it will decay through the most common decay path:

[latex]\pi^+ \rightarrow \mu^+ + V_m[/latex]

[latex]\mu^+ \rightarrow e^+ + V_e + \bar V_m[/latex]

with overall formula:

[latex]\pi^+ \rightarrow e^+ + V_e + \bar V_m + V_m[/latex]

If I calc right, it's also g=0,

but above you wrote [latex]\pi^+[/latex] has g=4 " summa active for outside in static status = 4*g"

What I am missing?

 

If Pion0 will decay to y + e+ + e-, I see that pion 0 has 8 your sub-particles, photon has 4, electron has 4, and neutrino has 4. 8 mismatch 12.. Right?

 

What does mean +g and -g ? If +g-g = 0, their "charges" cancel together? And there is no gravitation from such particle?

 

ps. Why are you wasting time coloring these quotes, instead of putting them in quotes?

Simply write [ quote ] ..... and end it with [ /quote ]

can be done with keyboard, no need to use mouse..

Edited September 18, 2014 by Sensei

[Kramer]

 

Swanson

I guess that puts your understanding of evolution at the same level as that of physics, and saying that evolution is under the rules of physics is not the same kind of claim as saying that electrostatics and gravity are connected.
------ Another attempt to show your knowledge supremacy, with what I never had any intend to compete. I never boasted with my knowledge, in both sciences. When I say that rules of physics apply in electrons, protons and molecules of organic objects in the same manner as in inorganic particles that doesn’t mean that two kind of natures science are the same.

watching a phenomena your brain may change it outcome” is not part of physics. But you are making the claim in a physics discussion, so it must represent a straw man of physics.

---- Copenhagen interpretations, popping of particles from nowhere, disappears in nothing, annihilation, change of flavors, colors, without any cause etc. they are not only discussions.

You see it done, but you evidently don't understand the meaning behind it, and/or derive meaning that isn't there. Just like cargo cults, building straw airports, thinking it will attract airplane traffic.

---- I am constricted to rebut your “ cargo cults” for attracting airports “traffic”.

You mean that I am interested to attract supporters in my “straw airport”? You are wrong. I think that there are real scientists ( not at all like a lay-man ignorant as me), in our country that work on the idea of Democritis atom, indivisible, indestructible , eterne in time (meaning) , unlimited in space. Kind of my sub-particle; may be diverse, but the same in core idea.

----- You tell me “ about my lack of understanding” or “ derive wrong meaning”.
Here I bring two formulas: with original and my “wrong interpretation”. I would liked your rebut about.
original T = (h / 2*pi) * (C^3 / (8*pi*G) / (kb * M)
My variant
1 = (((h*C / ((2*pi/α) *Ru)) * ((C^2 * C^2* Ru) / G) / ((Mu*C^2) * ( kb *cv2*T)

1 = Euh * EuG / EuE + EuB.

My interpretentions:
1) Manipulation with four kinds of the “same energy”--- Eu
2) Aim: to derive Tu--- inverse proportional with Mu.—Wrong
3) (Mu*C^2) = ( kb*cv2*Tu)

Sensei

Sorry, but WTF does it mean?
---- I have no idea what is WTF.

Like Feynman lines, showing how udd is changing to udu + e- + V

----- I don’t know how happens this miracle that “d “ gave birth (u + e- + V)

You know that Pion+ can decay to Pion0 and positron and neutrino, right?

----- I have not crystallized in myself about structure of “neutrino” and ‘Antineutrino”
In this case neutrino v = (-e / +g) + (+e /+g) and antineutrino ~v = (-e /-g) + (+e / -g)
If this rule go in contradiction with other cases, this means --- something is in core wrong in my hypothesis.

What does mean +g and -g ? If +g-g = 0, their "charges" cancel together? And there is no gravitation from such particle?

For outside particles -- right. For inside particles ---- no .

[swansont]

Swanson

I guess that puts your understanding of evolution at the same level as that of physics, and saying that evolution is under the rules of physics is not the same kind of claim as saying that electrostatics and gravity are connected.

------ Another attempt to show your knowledge supremacy, with what I never had any intend to compete. I never boasted with my knowledge, in both sciences. When I say that rules of physics apply in electrons, protons and molecules of organic objects in the same manner as in inorganic particles that doesn’t mean that two kind of natures science are the same.

No, it's to point out that you don't know what you're talking about. You claim things to be true that aren't actually true, and yet you think you understand these things.

 

 

watching a phenomena your brain may change it outcome” is not part of physics. But you are making the claim in a physics discussion, so it must represent a straw man of physics.

---- Copenhagen interpretations, popping of particles from nowhere, disappears in nothing, annihilation, change of flavors, colors, without any cause etc. they are not only discussions.

And the relation of these to 'watching with your brains, changing outcomes' is what, exactly?

 

You see it done, but you evidently don't understand the meaning behind it, and/or derive meaning that isn't there. Just like cargo cults, building straw airports, thinking it will attract airplane traffic.

---- I am constricted to rebut your “ cargo cults” for attracting airports “traffic”.

You mean that I am interested to attract supporters in my “straw airport”? You are wrong.

No, I mean you are going through the motions and doing what you think is science, but since there is no understanding of any of the details, there is only a superficial resemblance.

 

Like someone jabbering away, pretending to speak a foreign language. You might think it sounds authentic, but anyone who speaks the language isn't fooled.

 

I think that there are real scientists ( not at all like a lay-man ignorant as me), in our country that work on the idea of Democritis atom, indivisible, indestructible , eterne in time (meaning) , unlimited in space. Kind of my sub-particle; may be diverse, but the same in core idea.

Then go and find the papers that they've written.

 

----- You tell me “ about my lack of understanding” or “ derive wrong meaning”.

Here I bring two formulas: with original and my “wrong interpretation”. I would liked your rebut about.

original T = (h / 2*pi) * (C^3 / (8*pi*G) / (kb * M)

My variant

1 = (((h*C / ((2*pi/α) *Ru)) * ((C^2 * C^2* Ru) / G) / ((Mu*C^2) * ( kb *cv2*T)

1 = Euh * EuG / EuE + EuB.

My interpretentions:

1) Manipulation with four kinds of the “same energy”--- Eu

2) Aim: to derive Tu--- inverse proportional with Mu.—Wrong

3) (Mu*C^2) = ( kb*cv2*Tu)

 

I don't recognze the original equation, nor do I know what about half the terms in your variant are.

Your units don't work if the denominator (EuE + EuB) is indeed supposed to be a sum of energies

kb *cv2*T does not appear to have units of energy, depending on what cv2 is.

[Sensei]

Like Feynman lines, showing how udd is changing to udu + e- + V

----- I dont know how happens this miracle that d gave birth (u + e- + V)

There is reverse of it in proton-rich nucleus. See my explanation here

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85575-electrons-smaller-than-protons-but-have-equivalent-charge/?p=826742

 

That's quark-model (or any other sub-particles model) must agree with experimental data (decay of neutron, decay of proton-rich nucleus, decay of neutron-rich nucleus etc), than Universe must agree with theory.

If there is disagreement, it's always fault of theory (for well established experimental data).

 

You know that Pion+ can decay to Pion0 and positron and neutrino, right?

----- I have not crystallized in myself about structure of neutrino and Antineutrino

In this case neutrino v = (-e / +g) + (+e /+g) and antineutrino ~v = (-e /-g) + (+e / -g)

If this rule go in contradiction with other cases, this means --- something is in core wrong in my hypothesis.

In decays of more complex mesons and baryons you will probably find more examples of disagreements.

 

Annihilation producing 3+ photons:

[latex]e^+ + e^- \rightarrow \gamma + \gamma + \gamma + ...[/latex]

(more photons)

 

How do you solve it?

 

Photon with energy [latex]E_1[/latex] is absorbed by material, and two new photons with energies [latex]E_2 + E_3 = E_1[/latex] are created.

 

How do you solve it?

 

What is difference between neutrino with max. 18.6 keV (from Tritium decay f.e.) from neutrino with 0.862 MeV (from Beryllium-7 decay) ?

 

What does mean +g and -g ? If +g-g = 0, their "charges" cancel together? And there is no gravitation from such particle?

For outside particles -- right. For inside particles ---- no .

So, in your model gravity is not caused by any particle with G=0 "outside".

Which means photon,

pion+,

pion0

Although they have rest-mass..

 

And positron possessing G=+2, will cancel electron G=-2, gravitation ?

 

Sorry, but experimental evidences disagree with your theory..

Edited September 19, 2014 by Sensei

[Kramer]

 

Swansont

No, it's to point out that you don't know what you're talking about. You claim things to be true that aren't actually true, and yet you think you understand these things.
---- I speak my thought. In hypothesis no body claim for things to be true.

And the relation of these to 'watching with your brains, changing outcomes' is what, exactly?
---- On the right thinking: possibilities of waves of brain interacting with waves of phenomena. In the wrong thinking: supernatural power of human’s intellect.

No, I mean you are going through the motions and doing what you think is science, but since there is no understanding of any of the details, there is only a superficial resemblance.

“ going through the motions ” “even not understanding any of the details” is not wrong, expressing doubt is normal, trying to “sell” any suggestion that support doubt is legitimate. Not buyers, bad for seller and not big deal. There is not any reason for angry reaction.

Like someone jabbering away, pretending to speak a foreign language. You might think it sounds authentic, but anyone who speaks the language isn't fooled.
---- And let “jabber” -- jabbering”. Who, that really know “everything” about the language he speak, sure don’t be fooled. But maybe in the “jabber” are “words” that make “good speaking language” asks himself: do I really know everything?

 

Then go and find the papers that they've written.

---- Have not any interest, or intention. I like loneness.

I don't recognze the original equation, nor do I know what about half the terms in your variant are.

“half the terms” ?

Your units don't work if the denominator (EuE + EuB) is indeed supposed to be a sum of energies
Sorry! A wrong tipping for (EuE * EuB).

kb *cv2*T does not appear to have units of energy, depending on what cv2 is.
---- Cv2 is a constant, without unity, that equalize thermal energy with mass energy.

Sensei

There is reverse of it in proton-rich nucleus. See my explanation here
http://www.sciencefo...harge/?p=826742
----- Tried to open your “explanation” but was not able. Please, be more specific.

That's quark-model (or any other sub-particles model) must agree with experimental data (decay of neutron, decay of proton-rich nucleus, decay of neutron-rich nucleus etc), than Universe must agree with theory.
If there is disagreement, it's always fault of theory (for well established experimental data).
I agree.
But to be more concrete, will be more convincible. So please, if you have any example where ultimate result of des-integration of any particle, do not respect summa of electric charge or gravity charge in both side of equation that will be a sound argument against hypothesis of unique particle.

In decays of more complex mesons and baryons you will probably find more examples of disagreements.
----- That possible. Till now I have not found, truly I have not tried hard,

Annihilation producing 3+ photons:

(more photons)

How do you solve it?
----- Take in view: In des-integration, number of photons and number of “pair neutrino---antineutrino” that are component of energy, have not any limit in number because it depend of how much energy ( linked with relative velocity) is inserted in the particle.
Example: When you accelerated a particle in accelerator, you infuse to, many photons and neutrino-antineutrino, in form of unique particles. Are they, that when you collide, des-integrates and forms those thousand particles --- of post collide.
If you have any other explanation about this example, please rebut.

Photon with energy is absorbed by material, and two new photons with energies are created.

How do you solve it?
---- Have not thought about it. Believe me, I know that there are many facts that may “annihilate” the hypothesis of unique particles. Find any really true, you may give me peace of mind.

So, in your model gravity is not caused by any particle with G=0 "outside".
Which means photon,
pion+,
pion0
Although they have rest-mass..

---- All experiments that have, in ultimate result, only photons, pair (-e ,+e ) , (v, +~v) ---and whatever (+mx, -mx) may be considered as pairs structured by : ((-e/-g) + (+e/+g)) or ((-e / +g) + (+e /-g)). For outside, they do not display electric charge, but only electromagnetic variable field (wave), results of bi-charges in rotational movements.They do not display gravity.

[Sensei]

---- All experiments that have, in ultimate result, only photons, pair (-e ,+e ) , (v, +~v) ---and whatever (+mx, -mx) may be considered as pairs structured by : ((-e/-g) + (+e/+g)) or ((-e / +g) + (+e /-g)). For outside, they do not display electric charge, but only electromagnetic variable field (wave), results of bi-charges in rotational movements.They do not display gravity.

 

We have isomer isotope with mass m₁. Then it's decaying by isomeric transition to "plain" isotope with mass m₂.

Energy of gamma photon is [latex]E_y = (m_1-m_2 ) * c^2[/latex]

Before transition/decay higher mass of isomer was influencing gravity by small factor.

After decay total energy is still the same.

Before decay we had little gravity influence, after we don't have just because photon was emitted?

Makes no sense.

 

If gamma photon will be absorbed by some near material (and don't let escape Earth), and heat it, mass-energy of the system will remain constant. And we will have still the same gravitation as before.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Sensei

[swansont]

 

---- Cv2 is a constant, without unity, that equalize thermal energy with mass energy.

 

 

Great. Now define what the rest of the terms in the equation are

[Kramer]

 

Sensei

We have isomer isotope with mass m₁. Then it's decaying by isomeric transition to "plain" isotope with mass m₂.

Energy of gamma photon is

Before transition/decay higher mass of isomer was influencing gravity by small factor.

After decay total energy is still the same.

Before decay we had little gravity influence, after we don't have just because photon was emitted?

Makes no sense.

----I am afraid that you misunderstood my (+mx, –mx). They are particles of mater and antimatter.
In your example : Ey = (m1 – m2) * C^2 , equation may reduced in Ey = m3*C^2, which is nothing else but Einstein equation. In this case “m3”, that is difference of masses (m1-m2), must be a mass created by equal fifty-fifty from particles of mater and anti mater. Only they are copable to create photons. Other ways you cant accelerate mass m3
with C velocity.

 

If gamma photon will be absorbed by some near material (and don't let escape Earth), and heat it, mass-energy of the system will remain constant. And we will have still the same gravitation as before.
---- I think that this happen because photons “absorbed” by earth and transformed in heat, continue to be in status of microwaves--- after De Vien.

If I am not wrong as always?

Swansont

Great. Now define what the rest of the terms in the equation are.

--- There is not any physicist that don’t know what they are as constants, or as physics terms. So please don’t kidding me.

I think will be right if debate will direct in issues:

1--- Is, in this formula, any multiply and divide of constants that have canceled each other?
2--- If yes : why is it allowed for Celebrities, and not for every body?
If not: how comes that it fit exact with my hypothesis that all kind of energies , at least in Plank area are the same?

3---- Let leave aside if here is any real bogus! If you don’t see it!

[Sensei]

----I am afraid that you misunderstood my (+mx, mx). They are particles of mater and antimatter.

In your example : Ey = (m1 m2) * C^2 , equation may reduced in Ey = m3*C^2, which is nothing else but Einstein equation. In this case m3, that is difference of masses (m1-m2), must be a mass created by equal fifty-fifty from particles of mater and anti mater. Only they are copable to create photons. Other ways you cant accelerate mass m3

with C velocity.

You misunderstood my objections.

 

Photon, or kinetic energy of particles is causing gravitation also.

Gravitation doesn't disappear, just because unstable isotope decayed, as long as energy is still there.

Gamma photon will be absorbed by other particles near it.

[swansont]

--- There is not any physicist that don’t know what they are as constants, or as physics terms. So please don’t kidding me.

No, I'm not kidding. You've made up a new equation with many new terms

 

I would normally assume α is as defined in physics, but in a case like this I can't be sure.

Ru, Mu, Euh, EuG, EuE, and EuB are not defined anywhere. You said cv2 is a dimensionless constant of some sort, but not defined it further. You've noted that Euh, EuG, EuE, and EuB are some sort of energy terms

 

I think will be right if debate will direct in issues:

1--- Is, in this formula, any multiply and divide of constants that have canceled each other?

2--- If yes : why is it allowed for Celebrities, and not for every body?

Multiplying by 1 is mathematically allowed. The issue is assigning some kind of meaning in doing so. Multiplying by G/G does not transform an equation into a gravitational one.

[Kramer]

 

Sensei
You misunderstood my objections.

Photon, or kinetic energy of particles is causing gravitation also.
Gravitation doesn't disappear, just because unstable isotope decayed, as long as energy is still there.
Gamma photon will be absorbed by other particles near it.
----- Then I misunderstood your objections.
Photon, as I understand it, is the structure of particles of light. As this, it moves always with C velocity, in linear movement. In your case is not this kind of photon.

But photon can move in circular movement too, as an associate of particles of mass matter (electrons) in their link with other parts (protons) of a complex particle. This kind of photons derive from neutrinos: v and ~v that is [(-e/+g) + (+e / +g)] and

[( -e / -g) + (+e / -g)].

Example:

the structure of hydrogen particle that I suppose is created by electron proton and neutrino.

H = m e + v + mp = 2 (-e/-g) + [(+e) +(+g) + [( -e / +g)] + 2*[( +e / (-g)] =

(-e/-g) + [(=e/-g) +(+e/+g)] + [(-e/+g)*) + ( +e/-g)] + (+e /-g) =

(m e +ph.e) + (ph.m.*mp)

Note that photon of electron (ph.e), in structure, is different by that of photon of proton (ph,m). The photons in complex structures, move in circular movement, because of gravity of sub particles.

The hypothesis of structures created by unique sub-particle, gave possibility of changes of two kind of neutrinos inside a particle, in two kind of photons. But neutrinos have an ample diapason of radius, and with this, of energy. And this difference may be submitted to photons during “decays”.

---- If you want an honest debate, try to give your version of explanation. I think “energy create mass “ --- is a rubber-stamp that explain nothing.
In your example of decay, you (that have more knowledge), must have represented results of decay in terms of particles that have taken changes. This will be the right beginning for a debate.

Swanson

No, I'm not kidding. You've made up a new equation with many new terms.
---- Apologize about new equation, and about terms that I have improvised.
So let see original with my interpretation:

T = [((h/2*pi)*( C/Lpl.)] * [(C^3*C*Lpl) / (8*pi*G)] / ( Mpl.*C^2) * ( kb * 1)

1) 2) 3) 4)
In my interpretation author has used equations of four kind of energies in Plank area because they are equivalent. I don’t dispute here his intention.
I debate here about your rebut that multiplying and dividing with constants it is bogus. Here are C and Lpl. multiplied and divided (canceled).
I make the contrary: multiplied and divided with sqrt(G), for demonstrating that static electric and gravity energy, in Plank area are not only the same, but that “electric charge” and “mass” are linked between them by sqrt (G). And I speculate-- this is not casual.

 

I would normally assume α is as defined in physics, but in a case like this I can't be sure.
---- Sure you don’t. This is one of disputed point,
Ru, Mu, Euh, EuG, EuE, and EuB are not defined anywhere.

----- Are terms of physic in Plank area that I have named, to differentiate them from Plank originals. It is long past dispute between us about equivalence of energies. Based in this derive differentia’s of Plank constants by the role of “electric charge” real one, toward Plank “charge”.
It is sure that you not only don’t approve them, but even don’t want to debate about them.
Ru= Lpl*sqrt(α) radius of unique sub particles.
Mu=Plank mass *sqrt(α). “ “ “
Euh = Quantum energy of Plank particle * sqrt(α).
EuG = Gravity energy of Plank particle *sqrt(α).

EuE= Einstein energy of Plank particle*sqrt(α)

Eub = Thermal energy of plank particle * sqrt (α)

You said cv2 is a dimensionless constant of some sort, but not defined it further. You've noted that Euh, EuG, EuE, and EuB are some sort of energy terms
--- Don’t say I. ---- it is.

Multiplying by 1 is mathematically allowed. The issue is assigning some kind of meaning in doing so.
Multiplying by G/G does not transform an equation into a gravitational one.
----- I think it need to be allowed.multiplying electric charge and space with the same constant SQRT(G) which supposed to be the same (or quasi) for both.

[swansont]

I debate here about your rebut that multiplying and dividing with constants it is bogus. Here are C and Lpl. multiplied and divided (canceled).

I make the contrary: multiplied and divided with sqrt(G), for demonstrating that static electric and gravity energy, in Plank area are not only the same, but that “electric charge” and “mass” are linked between them by sqrt (G). And I speculate-- this is not casual.

My point is that putting G/G into in equation does not link it with gravity. Any more than taking the equation for compound interest A=P(1 + r/n)^nt and modifying it to A=PG(1 + r/n)^nt /Gmeans that compound interest has a connection with gravity.

 

(Do note however, that in that link they defined what each term in the equation stands for)

 

 

----- Are terms of physic in Plank area that I have named, to differentiate them from Plank originals.

There is only one Planck energy

[Kramer]

There is only one Planck energy
I continue to think that Plank constant were defined in an era of physics, when was not known the value of electric charge, and the calculations were performed in planetary system: (2*pi*L) --- for this they are outdated. And they violate reality about equivalence of all kind of energies in Plank area, including wrong with arbitrary way the electric energy.

 

Swansont

My point is that putting G/G into in equation does not link it with gravity. Any more than taking the equation for compound interest A=P(1 + r/n)^nt and modifying it to A=PG(1 + r/n)^nt /Gmeans that compound interest has a connection with gravity.

---- In quantum mechanic, method of calculation is statistic. Maybe for this, you use statistical examples. I don’t see any resemblance in treating particles as “ unity”, with your example-sarcastic.
For my thread the common particle is structured by two sub-particles, that posses always electric and gravity ability. To neglect one of this ability I think is wrong.
And they interact with each other in Physics space, that possess too, two kind of property; electric and gravity. So multiplying with constant of gravity (G) both sides: electric charge of particle and (even not evident) electric charge of particle on space (hidden in constant ε ) , is not wrong.

There is only one Planck energy
---I continue to think that Plank constant were defined in an era of physics, when was not known the value of electric charge, and the calculations were performed in planetary system: (2*pi*L) --- for this they are outdated. And they violate reality about equivalence of all kind of energies in Plank area, including wrong with arbitrary way the electric energy.

 

Swansont

My point is that putting G/G into in equation does not link it with gravity. Any more than taking the equation for compound interest A=P(1 + r/n)^nt and modifying it to A=PG(1 + r/n)^nt /Gmeans that compound interest has a connection with gravity.

---- In quantum mechanic, method of calculation is statistic. Maybe for this, you use statistical examples. I don’t see any resemblance in treating particles as “ unity”, with your example-sarcastic.
For my thread the common particle is structured by two sub-particles, that posses always electric and gravity ability. To neglect one of this ability I think is wrong.
And they interact with each other in Physics space, that possess too, two kind of property; electric and gravity. So multiplying with constant of gravity (G) both sides: electric charge of particle and (even not evident) electric charge of particle on space (hidden in constant ε ) , is not wrong.

[swansont]

There is only one Planck energy[/size]

I continue to think that Plank constant were defined in an era of physics, when was not known the value of electric charge, and the calculations were performed in planetary system: (2*pi*L) --- for this they are outdated. And they violate reality about equivalence of all kind of energies in Plank area, including wrong with arbitrary way the electric energy. [/size]

 

That's just it — the units ARE arbitrary. There is no connection with any physical object. There is no object that has a Planck unit of mass or charge or energy, etc. used as a definition. There's no correlation whatsoever. There is no "reality of equivalence" of energies.

 

 

Swansont

My point is that putting G/G into in equation does not link it with gravity. Any more than taking the equation for compound interest A=P(1 + r/n)^nt and modifying it to A=PG(1 + r/n)[/size]^nt /Gmeans that compound interest has a connection with gravity.[/size]

----[/size] In quantum mechanic, method of calculation is statistic. Maybe for this, you use statistical examples. I don’t see any resemblance in treating particles as “ unity”, with your example-sarcastic.

For my thread the common particle is structured by two sub-particles, that posses always electric and gravity ability. To neglect one of this ability I think is wrong.

And they interact with each other in Physics space, that possess too, two kind of property; electric and gravity. So multiplying with constant of gravity (G) both sides: electric charge of particle and (even not evident) electric charge of particle on space (hidden in constant ε ) , is not wrong. [/size]

 

It is wrong, in the sense that you are trying to claim an equation supports your idea.

 

If you want to claim that there's a connection, fine. What's your experimental evidence that it's true? Or, how can we test the idea to see if it's true?

 

 

[Kramer]

Swanson
That's just it — the units ARE arbitrary. There is no connection with any physical object. There is no object that has a Planck unit of mass or charge or energy, etc. used as a definition. There's no correlation whatsoever. There is no "reality of equivalence" of energies.

---- Now please explain to me this “units ARE arbitrary”. You mean Plank’s units?
Because when I say that electric charge of Plank energy was defined arbitrary, I think that just this was the cause of violation of “ equivalence of all kind of energies”. But this doesn’t mean devaluation of Plank units, devaluation of the idea of equivalence of energies. This means that Plank units must be corrected.

The characters of “unique sub-particle”, corresponds, in one way, as a tentative to correct Plank units, preserving the idea of equivalence of energies. And, on the other hand to find a pattern for all kind of particles, using that in Plank area, and the link or relation of common particles with corrected Plank constants.

It is wrong, in the sense that you are trying to claim an equation supports your idea.
----- I insist in my idea, because it gave, maybe naïve, but reasonable explanation about more of statements of modern physics. Those statements don’t go further than statement like; mass equal energy, mass changed in energy and vice verse, mass change with acceleration, duality mass wave etc. for which I myself am not sure.

If you want to claim that there's a connection, fine. What's your experimental evidence that it's true? Or, how can we test the idea to see if it's true?

---- Experimental evidence? About particles of mass that have gravity, and electric property, and mass-less particles are deprived of them? This is fact. I tried to give an explanation. Give me yours.
Or insisting in experimental evidence, and not in abstract debate, is it a call for to close this post? It’s your right.