yahya515

do not take it as personal attack, the thing which I present above is both using mathematics to explain my idea and presenting a problem which is weired and I can not find its solution ,only by using my concept. so please get into the road. I invite Mordred as well. I think I am being attacked

I want a clear explanation for the above problem. and in my opinion you won't find one, because with your all knowlege of atomic physics and quantum mechanics, you are like the others , left classical mechanics uncomplete and jumped to atomic physics and quantum mechanics leaving classical mechanics uncomplete and poor. I am the one who will focus on classical mechanics and explain it deeply .

I will continue using classical mechanics, which was left behind , uncomplete and I won't jump to quantum mechanics , like others .

we would like to move this atom or particle or any smallest amount could be, from point a to point b , there are only two possible ways to move this object, classical mechanics continuous motion and Yahya's discrete motion there is not any other ways for this particle to move , if it did not move by continuous motion , and if it actually moved then it indeed moved by Yahya's discrete motion. if it moves by Yahya's discrete motion, it will be as simple as jumping from a point a to a nearby point say c , this point is specified , having a particular X distance .OK. if it moves continuously it should first move to a nearby point this point is not Yahya's point c , it is the point having the smallest distance x.OK. This small distance is approaching zero. OK so if we want to move this object we should first move to a nearby point which is smaller as tending to zero. the time is something moving and does not care about any of us, if this object remain at this point which is a , time will pass without the particle moving , I think its 15 minutes now writing my post and our object did not move, earth moved some angle , some people are having some fun, and time measured all this events by some velocities , and it refuses to measure our object motion , to say for example 5 meters per each of my unit which is one second, because it should move first to the smallest distance which approaches zero, so this object will not move by continuous motion , instead it will move by discrete motion , by a specific jump. OK. show that mathematically. the ΔX quantity will be zero , however the time will not , time passes whether our object moves or not, we can make some reference time and it should not be zero, suppose that 2e46 seconds passed when time first started, if we want calculate , what object velocity is , it moves 10 meters after 5 seconds from this absolute time reference , it will be simply 10/ (2e46 + 5) - (2e46+0) = 2 m/s !!! if it did not move after this 5 seconds, it will be (0)/ (any desired time interval you want), the result will be zero, for example, what is its velocity after 1 hour, ? (0)/ (2e46+3600) = 0 , the result will be the same (0). however our previous object and because Mr Sawnsont said that the nearby point should be the smallest point to the left in order for this object to move continuously , one scientist suggested it should be 5e-60 meters , because if we suggest something greater we will follow yahya's discrete motion theory, they continued suggestions without the object moving and our time reference became, 4e46 seconds, that means they spend (4e46-2e46) = 2e46 seconds =(approximately) 6e36 years. and the object did not move and will never move by this concept. another thing is how this will have a solution : ΔX/Δt , both the denominator and numerator approaches zero. this quantity should equal zero because the object is at stationary, how this quantity ΔX/Δt ,will equal zero while both denominator and numerator approaches zero , I would like to know the instantaneous velocity for our poor object which did not move until now. according to my theory this quantity ΔX/Δt equals (0)/(0) which is undefined because the process of jumping did not even occur. the instantanous velocity at this particular moment is undefined . but according to continuous motion the instantanous velocity should be zero, if it is zero after 5 seconds , and it was zero at that instance , and remain zero all the time , the force will be zero, and that is true no force is acting on this object, if it was not zero, and became zero after a moment, it has some accelaration and some force is acting on this object and that is not true. so it should be zero, how that is possible mathematically? give me a logical assertion for that so that I will stop giving assertions without tests.

the thread is not about how atoms behave during discrete motion, however it is a description of the concept of discrete motion itself. thread edited.

I said "charge is a collection of electrons" as an example of discrete quantities in my above post whether "in all things" (as you said above) or not, you said " not everything can be explained as discrete or collection as the quark can not be explained as being formed of simple particles carrying charges" I said " it is fundamental it explain and not be explained" you said "the up quark for example is +2/3, are you saying that it is missing 2/3 of an electron? " I said " the quark or an electron are particles carrying charges , pure charge is nothing, if we want to add a charge we add electrons without spliting the charge from them , and if we want to add +2/3 charge we add some quarks!!!! do you know how to add quarks to obtain positive charge

but charge needs something to carry it , like electrons if we want negative charge we gain it by adding electrons , we can not split the charge from electrons , also charge can not be split from a quark , a charge is an identity for an electron the up quark is called so because it positive, what does an electron without negative charge mean

they are fundamental they have the role to make other complicated things simple, not to be explained in a complicated way , their charge should not be explained they EXPLAIN other charges.

negative charge is gaining ELECTRONS, positive charge is losing ELECTRONS, the charge can be determined by the number of ELECTRONS, so if we have a charge of x coulombs there are number of ELECTRONS in this object, there are a collection of ELECTRONS representing this particular charge. if one ELECTRON is lost from this collection charge will be affected.

an atom is neutral because IT CONSISTS OF negative electrons and positive nucleus ,a nucleus is positive because IT CONSISTS OF protons which are positive , and neutrons which are neutral , a proton is positive because IT CONSISTS OF of two 'up' quarks and one 'down' quark , and an up quark is positive because IT CONSISTS OF ............. the key is the phrase CONSIST OF , if we know what it consists of or what it is deeply we will be able to explain its charge.

it will lose its contained energy, vibration is a kind of moving at small distances, it is a motion at small distance each time, when a bar of iron moves at small distance , which is vibration , according to its density and atom , it will loose kinetic energy to be sound energy, at half of the frequency it will loose some energy and at a number of vibrations it will loose more energy, this half vibration is moving in a small distance, for an atom moving at small distance one side will lead to loosing some of its contained energy, the atom to save itself it change into energy and jump to the nearest position which is its diameter , and return to mass again . they can not be divided in normal states and reactions. no, but you can skip the figure illustration introduction. there is nothing called continuity ,everything is a collection , matter is a collection of atoms , molecules , light is a collection of photons, electricity is a collection of electrons running through a wire, charge is a collection of electrons, vibration is a collection of frequent motion each time ,the thing which made motion continuous is because it was left behind, and was accepted as being continuous , it is time to think about motion differently.

when an object moves from point say A to point B , it disappears at that position which is A and appears in position B, it disappears to become energy and appears again as mass, this process is not noticeable because atoms disappear and appear in sequence, if we think of motion as above , i.e an atom moving by jumping from point a to point b, it will change into energy = mc^2 adding to it the energy which it possesses by force. friction: I said above an atom will change to energy at each jump and to mass again , and the total energy will be: mc^2+ 0.5 m v^2 , we notice that the kinetic energy is only (0.5*m*v^2) the quantity (mc^2) appears and disappears in something I call the jumping-system. And this equation will not work when the velocity is high, why? because if an object's atom energy is E joule equals mc^2, it will not be possible to add energy more than this quantity which is 0.5 *m* v^2 when v= C , i.e the energy -mass jumping and changing system will not be able to contain more energy than the energy of the mass itself. or even half it. in friction , when the mass changes into energy and adding to it the kinetic energy, it transfers some energy from the jumping-system to the object in contact. this energy is coming from the force acting on an object , the system will be able to transfer energy, because it is an energy-mass-jumping system , so it will be able to transfer energy to any object in contact, the energy or heat energy produced or even sound , etc will increase by the increment in normal force because for instance by pressing tightly more atoms will have the opportunity to contact with other atoms in the object..........

I think the energy contained in mass is unique.

right, it is a mistake they are just equal in mass , thanks.

suppose you have a cube of ice and a cup of water , they are of the same mass, someone told you that ice is just water frozen, this same water if we put it in the cube shape and freeze it we will obtain ice, and if we melt the ice putting it in the cup we will obtain water, you ask what you first made then transformed ? ice or water? or both? you say : water because I collected molecules of water closer to be steam then to be liquid then to be solid. anyway my question was about pre-creation thing , I know that energy is a property of matter , I think talking about pre-creation things is difficult , and what I mean is was it energy then mass or mass then energy or both , assuming that to obtain mass we should already have energy to transform it , and in my opinion the opposite is not , i.e if mass is energy it should be made of some kind of energy.

when I say: negative mass is how much energy disappeared from vacuum to form mass I mean energy was not reduced , instead it disappeared , this gives two questions : what was first , energy or matter? ​will the concept of energy disappearance be valid? regardless of religious concepts I think energy first exists, and then it transformed into matter, a philosophical argument my be: every mass is energy and not every energy is mass, i.e energy exists in different ways, and it can be changed into different forms this characteristic makes it capable to change into mass , however mass exists in one form an atom. and in order to change into mass it should disappear , another philosophical argument may be: if mass when it changed into matter did not disappear, then when we release the energy contained in the matter we will have double amount of energy, and energy can not be created , so it should disappear. perhaps this concept is valid in energy transformations , it disappears in a form and appears in another form, the same for a particle when it moves between two positions A and B , it disappears in position A and appears in position B. so if mass disappears in position A and did not appears in position B it will transform into energy, when energy disappears from a particular form and did not appear in another form it will change into matter.

the core part was the negative mass ,the last paragraph was only a hint to another theory of mine which I do not want to talk about in this thread.

I think we do not use the minus sign when calculating electric force between a negative charge and a positive one. I do not mean reduction , I do not refer to mathematical concept, when I owe you ten dollars, and you have nothing to pay them back to me then you have minus 10 dollars, I mean you have ten dollars and I have Sudanese pounds equivalent to your ten dollars.

this is just what the equation states, it is not pretty clear as in for example electric fields, a force appears only if there are charges, my explanation is negative mass is a kind of charge. negative mass is not a mathematical description to appear in equation it is a physical one .

what does this mean: F=GMm/r^2, F is the measure of force , what is the relation between mass , r^2, and force? of course.

it is not energy density, it is mass density , energy was already transformed into mass, there is not any energy left , the thing which is left is negative mass as a gravitational field.

new concepts will never change these equations: F=ma F=GMm/r^2 it will answer rather the question: why force and also acceleration are proportional to the quantity : m/r^2 because it represents negative mass density per each unit of area, and force is understood now to increase by the increment in negative mass density, and negative mass is the opposite of positive mass, positive mass is how much matter there is, negative mass is how much matter is missing from a place, vacuum is neutral which has zero mass , gravitation field is negative mass, that why positive mass is attracted to it ,to fulfill the place which has negative mass with positive one.

k=g/ρ, simply when g decreases the ρ decreases as well by the same amount: ρ= mass/(4π*r*r) r is the distance from the centre of earth. I think Newton's equation of gravitation is: g=Gm/r^2 by simple comparison k is always constant.

The positive mass is how much matter there is and the negative mass is how much energy disappeared from vacuum to form mass , it is possible to have negative energy , in relativity energy comes out of mass by the square of speed of light increament here I would like to present the equation in opposite direction i.e huge energy produces little mass by the reciprocal of the square of the speed of light factor , by the idea that mass was obtained by making huge work, then the same energy is released by the same equation. by the arguement above when mass was made by work done , something left which is the negative mass qauntity, it is the same as when collecting heat energy from a place cold occurs there , because at first energy came from nothing to be as a certain quantity in the whole universe , as thermodynamics first law states that we have a specific a mount of energy in the universe nothing disappears nothing will be created. the negative mass equals the positive one in magnitute without the negative sign, the gravity field is the amount of negative mass differs in density from the centre which it is at its highest density to zero at infinty , the density of negative mass is mass divided by the spherical area: ρ= mass/(4π*r*r) , k.g/m*m where( r) is the distance between the centre of the spherical mass to the surface to measure density at. when many particles gather they multiply the density by the same amount of the masses together. the vacuum is zero mass , positive mass is attracted to area of negative mass to fulfill it, for instance masses on earth move from less area density to high area density , from above earth surface to its surface to its centre this is the gravitational force which is directely proportional to the density of negative mass: F=k*ρ*m newtons where k is a constant. to obtain k: g= 9.8 m/s*s , g= k*ρ ρ= 6*10E24/ (4π*6378000*6378000)= 1.17E10. k.g/m*m k=g/ρ = 8.34E-10 the reason why the density decreases far away from masses is because the stages of creating the mass from energy differs, i.e the energy to make mass is used in accelarated manner , if we think in it as kinetic energy, the velocity began at zero in infinity and increased to its maximum amount at the place where the dimentions of the mass are. the maximum speed is the speed of light ©: kinetic energy = 0.5 * mass * v*v here v= c however according to relativity : energy= mass*c*c the kinetic energy to produce mass is half the energy released from the mass because part of the kinetic energy is used first beginning from speed = zero until it reaches its maximum v= c. when heat affects atoms , some energy comes out as light , the energy comes out as it was stored to form matter , i.e it comes out as light with velocity ©, heat will be stored instead of the released light energy.

it is a tradition called Tatbir of a an Islamic group called Shia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatbir