Gravity energy --- mass energy two different concepts

[swansont]

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”.

 

 

 

What do you mean by “equivalence of all kind of energies”? Where does this idea come from? That has to be a real thing for there to be a violation.

 

 

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.

 

No it's not fact. Massless particles are a source of gravity. Chargeless particles exert gravity. There is no equivalence.

 

And yes, if your ideas lack falsifiability, then you have not met the burden of the rules. Thread closure for that reason means never bringing the subject up up again.

[Endy0816]

This means that Plank units must be corrected.

 

This relates back to a previous discussion on Planck units...

 

They need to do this:

 

 

Planck units are physical units of measurement defined exclusively in terms of five universal physical constants listed below, in such a manner that these five physical constants take on the numerical value of 1 when expressed in terms of these units.

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

 

It is real simple, ensure that the constants G, ħ, c, k_e, k_B , take on the numerical value of 1 when expressed in terms of your "corrected" units.

 

If you can do this then by all means, show us. If not however, then you need to reexamine your thinking on the subject.

 

[Kramer]

If you can do this then by all means, show us. If not however, then you need to reexamine your thinking on the subject.If you can do this then by all means, show us. If not however, then you need to reexamine your thinking on the subject.

If you can do this then by all means, show us. If not however, then you need to reexamine your thinking on the subject.

 

Swansont

What do you mean by “equivalence of all kind of energies”? Where does this idea come from? That has to be a real thing for there to be a violation.

THE IDEA come from numerical facts:

Epl.=1956272037 J.

Epl = ( h * C) / (2 * pi * lp)
Epl = (C^4 * lp) / G
Epl = (G * Mp^2 ) / lp
Epl = Mp * C^2
Epl = ((Qp^2) * ?) / (4 * pi * ε * lp)
Epl = kb * T

And from [G * Mp / lp = C^2]

My variant: And relations with Plank constants. Here in Eus--- us for unique subparticle.

Eus = 167113637.7 j. = Epl *sqrt( α )

Eus = e^2 / (4*pi*ε * Rus) => Rus = Lp *sqrt( α )
Eus = (h * C) / ((2*pi /α) Rus
Eus = Mus*C^2
Eus = (C^4 * Rus) / G
Eus = G*Mus^2 / Rus => Mus = Mp * sqrt( α )
Eus = kb*cv2 * Tus => Tus = Tp * sqrt( α )

Here too [G * Mus) / Rus = C^2]

The relations with common elementary particles:
mx = Mus * ( λus / λx )
rx = Rus / ( λus / λx)

No it's not fact. Massless particles are a source of gravity. Chargeless particles exert gravity. There is no equivalence.

----- For inside structure of particle always --- yes, there exists both electric and gravity interactions. For outside depend by structure of particle.

And yes, if your ideas lack falsifiability, then you have not met the burden of the rules. Thread closure for that reason means never bringing the subject up up again.
----- It’s your right to get rid from a nuisance.

Endy0816

This relates back to a previous discussion on Planck units...

They need to do this:

Quote

Planck units are physical units of measurement defined exclusively in terms of five universal physical constants listed below, in such a manner that these five physical constants take on the numerical value of 1 when expressed in terms of these units.It is real simple, ensure that the constants G, ħ, c, k_e, k_B , take on the numerical value of 1 when expressed in terms of your "corrected" units.

------ I haven’t seen it, in this prism. What this mean? Is it for example:

G / ( Rus^3*Mus^-1*Tus ^-2 ) = 1* (2*pi/α)^2 --- and you think is wrong? Because isn’t “1” ?

If you can do this then by all means, show us. If not however, then you need to reexamine your thinking on the subject.t.

------ “show us” Who are “us”? Have you thought about this subject yourself? About some statements, which do not go further than statements, and needs answers from “us” you? This is debate, not only ascking.

[swansont]

Swansont

What do you mean by “equivalence of all kind of energies”? Where does this idea come from? That has to be a real thing for there to be a violation.

THE IDEA come from numerical facts:

Epl.=1956272037 J.

Epl = ( h * C) / (2 * pi * lp)

Epl = (C^4 * lp) / G

Epl = (G * Mp^2 ) / lp

Epl = Mp * C^2

Epl = ((Qp^2) * ?) / (4 * pi * ε * lp)

Epl = kb * T

And from [G * Mp / lp = C^2]

 

Yes, you can rearrange the planck energy equation a number of ways. They are all equal, because all you've done is rearrange the equations.

 

What is the violation you keep talking about?

[Endy0816]

------ I haven’t seen it, in this prism. What this mean? Is it for example:

G / ( Rus^3*Mus^-1*Tus ^-2 ) = 1* (2*pi/α)^2 --- and you think is wrong? Because isn’t “1” ?

 

If you are using all Planck Units you get to simplify your formulas. That's the gist of it.

 

------ “show us” Who are “us”? Have you thought about this subject yourself? About some statements, which do not go further than statements, and needs answers from “us” you? This is debate, not only ascking.

 

Us refers to everyone on this forum.

 

This is the measurement of Planck length.

 

 

Don't think of the length in terms of its metric system value. Think of it as just that equation.

 

There could be an alien species having this same discussion on their version of a forum and they would agree with us on the length of a unit as defined in this manner.

 

I looked into and validated the math to myself about a dozen years ago. So yeah, I've thought about it. There just isn't a whole lot of point to keep thinking about it. Was not all that interesting to get the exact answer I was expecting to get. Stuff you can apply your intelligence to and return with novel understanding is much more worthwhile.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Endy0816

[Kramer]

 

Swanson
Yes, you can rearrange the planck energy equation a number of ways. They are all equal, because all you've done is rearrange the equations.
------ Eh no, not rearrange the equations. Those equations are “rearrange” when I had not any idea about existence of Plank constants, except “h”. Playing with classic physics, I ( a lay-man) thought that must be a states, where accelerated mass can bring Newton and Coulomb in one foot. And when after I was known with “Lplank “, I was flattered, it was so close with radius of my “unique particle”,… but not equal. And…..

 

What is the violation you keep talking about?
You give me an electric charge, equal Qplank found experimentally in one particle and I give up, with violation of equal energies.

Andy

If you are using all Planck Units you get to simplify your formulas. That's the gist of it.

----- It was not my intention for treating Plank constants as “ units “. I was surprised because they seemed to me like have been derived by equivalence of energies.

In this meaning I have treated Plank units as characters of a particle, and as the upper border of physic’s reality, in comparison with E = h*1 as lowest border of Physic’s reality.

Us refers to everyone on this forum.
---- I thought your sentence was a provocative call, by somebody or a group, with bad intentions. Sorry if I was overreacting.

This is the measurement of Planck length.

----- I know that Lpl = sqrt ((( h / (2 * pi) ) * G) / C^3).
You know that I am not a physicist. So tread me like as I am.

I am in dilemma to know: Was Plank, which divided “ h with 2*pi ? Why? I think

C / ( (2*pi) * R ) = f has more meaning. But somebody (celebrity), don’t like it. Why?
I go further: C / ((2*pi) / α ) * R) = f is better.
If you see those doubt meaningless and in eons solved, then, we have different viewpoints, and we have nothing to debate.
Instead, I think in those deviations, linked with plank constants, is something wrong in the basements of fundamentals, in the different manners we see the reality.

Don't think of the length in terms of its metric system value. Think of it as just that equation.
---- I see it as a quantisation of space, and with it as the quantisation of time in “periods”. This, I think give base, to strip physic from metaphysic interpretations.

There could be an alien species having this same discussion on their version of a forum and they would agree with us on the length of a unit as defined in this manner.

I looked into and validated the math to myself about a dozen years ago. So yeah, I've thought about it. There just isn't a whole lot of point to keep thinking about it. Was not all that interesting to get the exact answer I was expecting to get. Stuff you can apply your intelligence to and return with novel understanding is much more worthwhile.
----- I have not any scientific education, to give any contribution in “novels”, and not any intelligence to apply somewhere, except in my doubts --- worthwhile only for sleeplessness.

About your thought on this theme, I am curious to know, what “exact answer were you expecting to get”?

[Strange]

Swanson

 

Is the "Quote" button really beyond you?

What is the violation you keep talking about?

You give me an electric charge, equal Qplank found experimentally in one particle and I give up, with violation of equal energies.

 

There is no particle with the planck charge. Electrons, which have the fundamental unit of charge, have a charge of about 1/12 Planck charge.

 

But you still haven't explained what "violation" you are talking about. (Charge is not energy, by the way.)

 

In this meaning I have treated Plank units as characters of a particle

 

There is no reason that any particle should have the mass, charge, size or any other property with the value of 1 Planck unit. And none do.

 

I see it as a quantisation of space, and with it as the quantisation of time in “periods”.

 

Again, you are wrong to assign any such meaning to it. As far as I know, all theories that quantize space and time do it at scales much smaller than the Planck length.

 

http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/05/q-what-is-the-planck-length-what-is-its-relevance/

[swansont]

Swanson

Yes, you can rearrange the planck energy equation a number of ways. They are all equal, because all you've done is rearrange the equations.

------ Eh no, not rearrange the equations. Those equations are “rearrange” when I had not any idea about existence of Plank constants, except “h”. Playing with classic physics, I ( a lay-man) thought that must be a states, where accelerated mass can bring Newton and Coulomb in one foot. And when after I was known with “Lplank “, I was flattered, it was so close with radius of my “unique particle”,… but not equal. And…..

 

What is the violation you keep talking about?

You give me an electric charge, equal Qplank found experimentally in one particle and I give up, with violation of equal energies.

 

 

If you rearrange the Planck units — the actual Planck units — the energies will be equal. If you put other values in the equations, you will get different answers. That's how math works.

 

There is no violation of any sort of equal energy concept if you put different values into the equation. There is no justifiable expectation for the value to be the same, because (again) that's how math works.

 

There is no particle that has a Planck charge. There is no particle predicted to have the Planck charge.

[Endy0816]

 

----- It was not my intention for treating Plank constants as “ units “. I was surprised because they seemed to me like have been derived by equivalence of energies.

 

There is a Planck Constant(h) and then there are the Planck Units. These are not the same thing.

 

I can say: 5 Planck Lengths x 6 Planck Lengths = 30 x Planck Area.

 

Anything you can do with standard metric units, you can do with Planck Units.

 

----- I have not any scientific education, to give any contribution in “novels”, and not any intelligence to apply somewhere, except in my doubts --- worthwhile only for sleeplessness.

 

You have a brain your head just like everyone else. The root issue is that you have mistaken beliefs that you are not recognizing as such. If you can do this, clear away the cobwebs of mistaken thought and think instead of Planck Units as Units you will grow in understanding.

 

 

About your thought on this theme, I am curious to know, what “exact answer were you expecting to get”?

 

Planck Force in the form of: c⁴/G

 

It is algebra and mostly cancellations at that.

[Kramer]

Strange

There is no particle with the planck charge. Electrons, which have the fundamental unit of charge, have a charge of about 1/12 Planck charge.
---- For this I insist that equation that links this particle with the “legitimate ones”, is not right. If you don’t want to see the equivalence of energies, created by the same formulas that used in the common particles, as a pattern for all particles, including alleged Plank particle, I think is a issue of believing.
That may exists as a so called “black hole” particle (some celebrity think), or non exists because is “incinderated” by high temperature as in the formula of an another celebrity I, brought above in this thread, I think is an issue of personal taste.
My speculation is that “alleged corrected Planks constants, exists in alleged “unique sub-particle”, as an unique kind of blocks that structures all common particles.

But you still haven't explained what "violation" you are talking about. (Charge is not energy, by the way.)
----Who say that charge is energy? It creates energy because it is always in movement. Two “ unique particles” evolving toward each other in spherically or helicoidally trajectories create a particle, Mass or mass less depends by arrangements of electric charge and gravity charge.

There is no reason that any particle should have the mass, charge, size or any other property with the value of 1 Planck unit. And none do.

---- Isn’t “h” a plank constant? Why not [“ sqrt (G) * Mpl.* sqrt ( α )] as a factor of ‘gravity ability’ in common particles? Why “h” is eclipsing all other characters?

Again, you are wrong to assign any such meaning to it. As far as I know, all theories that quantize space and time do it at scales much smaller than the Planck length.

----- And just for this we may have : E = h / t => infinity and f = C / t = infinity. O come on.

Swansont

If you rearrange the Planck units — the actual Planck units — the energies will be equal. If you put other values in the equations, you will get different answers. That's how math works.

----- I put others because they fit in the filling vacancies of some puzzles, and at least one of them is well known and measured.

There is no violation of any sort of equal energy concept if you put different values into the equation. There is no justifiable expectation for the value to be the same, because (again) that's how math works.
----- How about break of symmetry? Or you think is a straw man in the debate , as always ignorant do?

There is no particle that has a Planck charge. There is no particle predicted to have the Planck charge.
----- Because Plank charge was a fudge, based on the data of the era.

Andy0816

There is a Planck Constant(h) and then there are the Planck Units. These are not the same thing.

------ Constant “h” was discovered for explanation of other issue of the era. Other constants, that you call Units, I think, were a search for finding the limits of using this constant. And I think the limit is when all kind of energies take the same value..

I can say: 5 Planck Lengths x 6 Planck Lengths = 30 x Planck Area.
Anything you can do with standard metric units, you can do with Planck Units.
It think, it is like, the metron used by Heim, which was unsuccessful tentative for the theory of everything. But I was not able to understand his math. And I suppose that “characteristic distance “ of him, was derived by a formula in which were scrambled some kind of energies. Deal of celebrities. But this is a straw man as say Swansont.

You have a brain your head just like everyone else. The root issue is that you have mistaken beliefs that you are not recognizing as such. If you can do this, clear away the cobwebs of mistaken thought and think instead of Planck Units as Units you will grow in understanding.

---- eh…. Thanks for encouragement…. And for suggestions.

Planck Force in the form of: c⁴/G

C^4/ G = ( G*Mpl^2 / lpl ^2 ) = (G*Mpl / lpl)* (G*Mpl / lpl ) / G

C^4 / G = ( G * Mu^2 / Ru^2) = ( G*Mu / Ru) * ( G*Mu / Ru ) / G

It is algebra and mostly cancellations at that.
----- You think is more comlicated?

 

[swansont]

including alleged Plank particle

 

 

What Planck particle? There is no such thing.

 

 

There is no reason that any particle should have the mass, charge, size or any other property with the value of 1 Planck unit. And none do.

---- Isn’t “h” a plank constant? Why not [“ sqrt (G) * Mpl.* sqrt ( α )] as a factor of ‘gravity ability’ in common particles? Why “h” is eclipsing all other characters?

 

You use the constants that are appropriate to the equations. You can't stuff them in arbitrarily

 

 

If you rearrange the Planck units — the actual Planck units — the energies will be equal. If you put other values in the equations, you will get different answers. That's how math works.

----- I put others because they fit in the filling vacancies of some puzzles, and at least one of them is well known and measured.

 

What is well known and measured? Which one(s)?

 

 

There is no violation of any sort of equal energy concept if you put different values into the equation. There is no justifiable expectation for the value to be the same, because (again) that's how math works.

----- How about break of symmetry? Or you think is a straw man in the debate , as always ignorant do?

 

I don't recall symmetry coming up, and don't see its connection here. Without a connection to physics, it's a straw man. What symmetry is being broken, and how does it cause energies to be the same? (And which energies would that be?)

 

 

There is no particle that has a Planck charge. There is no particle predicted to have the Planck charge.

----- Because Plank charge was a fudge, based on the data of the era.

 

No more than using electron-Volts instead of Joules. It's a term of convenience

[Strange]

Strange

 

Please click the button marked QUOTE. You might be amazed at what happens.

For this I insist that equation that links this particle with the “legitimate ones”, is not right. If you don’t want to see the equivalence of energies, created by the same formulas that used in the common particles, as a pattern for all particles, including alleged Plank particle, I think is a issue of believing.

 

"Believeing" has nothing to do with science. There is no evidence for the particle you describe. It is a figment of your imagination.

 

My speculation is that “alleged corrected Planks constants, exists in alleged “unique sub-particle”, as an unique kind of blocks that structures all common particles.

 

You can speculate all you like, but without evidence it is worthless.

[Endy0816]

 

Constant “h” was discovered for explanation of other issue of the era. Other constants, that you call Units, I think, were a search for finding the limits of using this constant. And I think the limit is when all kind of energies take the same value..

 

Maxwell Planck who discovered the constant(h) also introduced a unit system. Both the Planck Constant and the Planck Units are named after him for this reason alone. They are not the same thing.

 

Units are not constants, constants are not units.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Endy0816

[Kramer]

 

Swansont

What Planck particle? There is no such thing.
----Sorry “alleged”. But why not such a thing, when you admit a “scientific” dark matter particle, or a neutrino kind as particle of dark matter? ---- Again a straw man.

You use the constants that are appropriate to the equations. You can't stuff them in arbitrarily

What is well known and measured? Which one(s)?
----- They are not arbitrary. Ones may use them as constant and as unity. If you use them as constants you must take them in rate with common unities. If you use them as unities, it is the inverse , common unities in common constants must be in rate with plank unities.

Well, let say “Plank h”, which is used both ways, electric charge “e”, which is used one way. Velocity “C” which is used as velocity of spherical loops: “ C / ( (2*pi) / α )

I don't recall symmetry coming up, and don't see its connection here. Without a connection to physics, it's a straw man. What symmetry is being broken, and how does it cause energies to be the same? (And which energies would that be?)

---- As a lay man I see the broken symmetry this way:

It was an era when all kind of energies had the same value, this mean were the same. After when the mater was cooled this symmetry was broken. Began the profiling of gravity energy apart, different from others which continued to be the same until a another broken symmetry….etc.

The first status I think was the equivalence of plank energies.
But I don’t believe even in this kind of explanation.

No more than using electron-Volts instead of Joules. It's a term of convenience

----- Electron – volt, it is not about unity. It is about the law that links two electric charges between them and distance in physic space:

Ux*rx = 1.439964393 * 10 ^-9 V*m and

Ex = e * Ux = e * 1.439964393 * 10^-9 / rx in eV

Ex = (2.307077057*10 ^ - 28 ) / rx in Jouls
.

Strange

Please click the button marked QUOTE. You might be amazed at what happens.

---- I don’t have any. Where on earth is?

"Believeing" has nothing to do with science. There is no evidence for the particle you describe. It is a figment of your imagination.
----= Right. But in “ speculation” it is “like ones do science” and nobody think It is scientist, but is it a speculator.
(I don’t speak about you or others, you may have credentials for scientist....).

Evidence can be direct experimental fact, indirect using experimental fact, some simple calculations, some reasons, logic, a little out of box, some time far out of box, and ye most ---- figment of imagination, there where nobody inside the box has given “evidence”, the real evidence.

You can speculate all you like, but without evidence it is worthless.

---- It is not for sell, it is an expose of something old in contrast with new brands.

Andy 0816

Maxwell Planck who discovered the constant(h) also introduced a unit system. Both the Planck Constant and the Planck Units are named after him for this reason alone. They are not the same thing.

Units are not constants, constants are not units.
------As I reasoned above, I think, they may be used both ways.

[Sensei]

Please click the button marked QUOTE. You might be amazed at what happens.

---- I don’t have any. Where on earth is?

 

I am telling this to you for months...

 

Here:

 

 

Basically you select some text, and press that button, and you have quoted text...

Everybody on this forum is using it hundred times per day.. Except you.

[Strange]

 

I am telling this to you for months...

 

I was also thinking of the BIG button at the bottom right of EVERY post that says "Quote" in BIG letters. (Look, down there ...)

 

Easy to miss, I guess.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Strange

[Kramer]

?????

[Strange]

Here:

[swansont]

There's also a tutorial

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82164-the-quote-function-a-tutorial-in-several-parts/