dhimokritis

You are right. Was my mistake in tipping on of all known energy mass equation. What about others? Please don’t take as provocation by me. I value your rebut. For example: you say that protons --- anti protons do not (annihilate ?) each other , and do not create gamma rays. May be they are the source of neutrinos, via swapping their subs? I don’t say that the value of electric charge is not credible, and I do not put the experiment data in doubt. I think that electric charge “e” and Mass charge “M” are property of sub particles, and sub particles have structured the common particles giving them Electric charge neto and mass neto. The “neto mass” depend from distance of wave-length in spherical trajectories (aka radius of let say electron particle “me” of anti-mass sub M encapsulated inside. Without any intention of offence-- if I am barking in wrong tree, lol, I not bite, only spend some time with my friends and for this ask forgiveness? I am deluded about Higgs. I am afraid is not the particle, the field of which gave common particles inertia. ( Maybe is my charge “M”, I joke)

I think that determined mass of a particle based only in physics laws, is the only true method to be credible. The particles I think interact with photons, (and photons have a broad range of frequency) and in this interaction the photons wave – length, may have a possibility to be associated with wave –length of particle. You say is “absorbed” I say is associated, because the photon guest, now have changed in some way the characters of base particle, even its “mass”, but exist as a stranger, with opportunity to escape again. An electron particle in the beginning of acceleration in ciclo-tron, has different characters from that in the end of process when is forced to stop. The photons injected in particle during running, which are the cause of forced running, in stop dispersed and create other associations between them, that is create other particles. The Higgs particle I suppose is theorized only using fundamental laws of physic, without any experimental data. Experiment approved theory. Any theory alike for electron? When I say alike that is not based in some one data about electron particle. Sensei What about: Me*e*c2^2 = h*c / λc = G*M^2 / Re = R * C^2 * M / Re = e * e * U1 / e * re etc. and h = R * M * c * 2 * pi where M =Mpl.*scrt α and R = Lpl. * scrt α……..? /

I think that Compton wave -length is special for electron and proton because those particles are, after physics scientists, the most life - long particles. Other ways we would have electrons and protons with wave-length in a range from: λ1 = 348181.8762 m until ---- 1.1886797069 * 10^-33 m or with a frequency from: f1 = 1 Hz until fpl. = 2.522063132*10^41 Hz. With this post I want to know if exist any theory which operating in calculations with only constants of physics, and without using any experimental data, determine the exact mass of electron and proton. If yes, please, elaborate those for me in simplest possible language. I will be very grateful, daring me a sound sleep, and forum one less crackpot poster. I used “radius” from Compton wave-length, an experimental data, with hope for any clue how to get rid from experimental data, with out success. I think that Compton wave -length is special for electron and proton because those particles are, after physics scientists, the most life - long particles. Other ways we would have electrons and protons with wave-length in a range from: λ1 = 348181.8762 m until ---- 1.1886797069 * 10^-33 m or with a frequency from: f1 = 1 Hz until fpl. = 2.522063132*10^41 Hz. With this post I want to know if exist any theory which operating in calculations with only constants of physics, and without using any experimental data, determine the exact mass of electron and proton. If yes, please, elaborate those for me in simplest possible language. I will be very grateful, daring me a sound sleep, and forum one less crackpot poster. I used “radius” from Compton wave-length, an experimental data, with hope for any clue how to get rid from experimental data, with out success. I think Compton wave-length is linked with structure of particle, and the phenomena of scattering is an indirect result of this structure. In my hypothesis, the main common most life-length particles electron and proton, have a structure with a strict radius each, and I don’t see and don’t understand why the contemporary physics disregard this so important particle’s character, of something that exist in space. The structure of above particles, I hypothesizes, consist from one sub-particle of anti mass, and two sub-particles of mass. The concept of inertial mass is only for structured common particles, when they have take a stand. The sub particles of mater, which I suppose in free status, are always in movement with velocity of ‘c’ ( like bosons ) are intertwined in a spherical movement of a photon ( A par of two diverse sub particles ) and one “central sub particle” that hold in relative stand of all structure. And the Compton wave-length in this case ( in a spherical trajectory ) has a length that is determined by distance from center. The formulas given in this post support this kind of visualization: Two sub particles, in movement toward center with the same “c” movement, are in relative static status, toward each other. Thus--- we may use Coulomb law, and Newton low. The two sub-particles are electric charges in spherical trajectory movement, hence they display a current property that depends from frequency of cycles in unity of time. The frequency depends by radius. This visualization justify applying the other Bio-Savard law about two current interacting with each other. For the same reason we may apply three simple equation based in Ohm laws . The difference here is that resistance is Klitszing Rk., the same for whatever radius.

Question: Why mass of electron and proton particles are what they are? Here is a “number of equations” that give energy and mass of a hypothetic common particles with an hypothetic “Compton unity wave length” equal “ (2 * pi * α^-1 * 1) in meter ”. Here “ 1 m ” is the radius of hypothetic particle, equal unity space of system. From real particles “electron’s” and ‘Proton’s” wave-length, we may find radius of electron “ Re. = 2.8179401*10^-15 m.” and Rp. = 1.534698258*10^-18 m. for proton. Replacing this radiuses, in below formulas we find energy and indeed mass of those particles. The given below formulas I may call unique compositions, because they are created by only different physics constants, without any specific experimental data for them. We may find mass , frequency, energy, voltage, current, by simple physics laws, but …… only using radius from Compton Wave length equal unity 1 m. The question may be different: Why Compton wave-length is so special only for proton and electron. Some explanation about used constants of physics: M = Mplanck * scrt α^0.5 = 1.859389978*10^-9 kg. R = Lplanck * scrt α^0.5 = 1. 380543856*10^ -36 m Rk Klitsing resistance. = 25812.8075729 ohm f1 = C / (2*pi*α^-1*1 ) = 348181.8762 Hz. U1 = e / ( 4*pi *ε * 1 ) = 1.439964393 * 10^-9 V m / 1 I1 = e * f1 = 5.578488068 * 10^-14 A m / 1 ---------------------------------- 1-- ( μ / (4*pi) ) * I1^2 * (2*pi*α^-1) ^2 *1 = E1 E1 / C^2 (2.307077057 * 10^-28 j. ) (2.566969417*10^-45 kg.) 2-- e^2 / (4 * pi * ε * 1 ) = E1 e^2 / ( 4 * pi* ε * 1 * c^2 ) = M1 (2.307077058 * 10^-28 j.) (2.566969418*10^-45 kg.) 3-- h * c / ( 2 *pi * α^-1 * 1 = E1 h * c / ( 2 *pi * α^-1 * 1* c^2) = M1 (2.307077053 10^-28 j.) ( 2.566969412*10^-45 kg.) 4-- (U1 / 1) * ( e ) = E1 ( U1 / 1) * ( e ) / c^2 = M1 (2.307077057*10^-28 j.) (2.566969417*10^-45 kg. 5-- (U1 / 1 )^2 / (Rk * f1 * 1) = E1 ( U1 / 1 )^2 / (Rk * f1 * 1) / c^2 = M1 (2.307077156*10^-28 j.) (2.566969527*10^-45 kg.) (U1)^2 / ( Rk * f1 ) = E1 ( U1)^2 / ( Rk * f1 ) / c^2 = M1 6-- (U1 * I1 / f1 ) = E1 ( U1 * I1 / F1 *c^2 ) = M1 (2.307077152*10^-28 j.) (2.566969522*10^-45 kg.) 7-- ( I1^2 * Rk / f1) = E1 ( I1 ^2 * Rk / f1 * c^2 ) (2.307077148 * 10^-28 j.) ( 2.566969518 * 10^-45 kg) And: 1-- G * M^2 / 1= E1 G * M^2 / 1 * c^2 = M1 2—( R * c^2 / M ) * (M *M ) / 1= ( R * M * c^2 ) / 1 = E1 (R * M *c^2 ) / 1 *c^2 = M1 3 ……..

I think that MIL is in the right direction, and his arguments (leaving aside some boasting and hyper – enthusiasm about his controversial with mainstream physic), stands strong, if we will be not biased. How many questions about light (electromagnetic waves), have not find any persuasive answer? Can one of opponents in this thread may explain how something created from mass gravity objects and by means of electric charges, becomes without electric charges and gravity, move with “c” velocity, posses a specter frequencies, changing some property during their travel, and most of them to be changed again in mass particle with electric charge, in their stop. O yes. There are different theories, which explain this or that, of course for this are theories, but no one can explain how the photon gain c velocity, loose charge and mass, and again, gain them when he stops near some heave nucleus. This is MIL's thread, I can’t suggest something own in favor or contrary, (really some contra is permitted and valued if go with crowd). Other precaution is that my suggestions can be more false.

The first and second, from:Physics.nist.gov / constant. The third from conversion of electric constant that depend from charge “e”, in constant that depend from my Hypothetic charge : “M” The forth, by hypothetic potential (voltage) of : “e / e” in a distance 1 m. (that is unity of distance). “I” from the charge “ e “ moving with velocity c in spherical trajectory which create appropriate frequency for radius 1m. ” Thanks Studiot. I don’t go too dip, I am not able swimming. But I am satisfied that treating this constant classically I “re-found” in this post - speculation the link of von Klitzing constant from the “h” Planck and “e”. What satisfied me, is that constant “h” came accidentally when I tried to find the link of the “μ0” with other Planck constants.

Questions about Klitzing constant of resistance. Klitzing constant RK = 25812.807572(93) Ohm or RK = 25812.887557(18) Ohm, after sources of data constants, first attire my interest, because is a constant in space (or of space?), and is a constant that not depend by length, cross section, or material, as we common people are seeing in resistors. The second it attire my intention because: 1- RK = μ0 * c / (2 * α) is depend by another constant that has to do with mass. I find a few connections that depend by mass, radius, and C = e, but strange enough, in the result radius is eliminated. Z0 = 4 * pi * M * R * c / e^2 = 376 7303138 ohm. This is too a constant of space linked with : 2--RK = Z0 / 2 * α = 25812.80762 ohm. 3 -- RK = (M * R * c * 2 *pi * / α ) / e^2 = h / e^2 = 25812.80757 ohm 4 – RK = ( U1 * R1 ) / Rc / ( e * c / (2 * pi R1 / α ) * Rc = = ( U1 * R1 ) / ( I1 / R1) = (1.439964393 * 10^-9) * (5.578488068*10^-14) = = 25812.80762 ohm May any helper give me the formula from quanta mechanic theory about this constant, that result with the same value?

My idea is : there must be two meaning of M. M is charge of mass, which create the all kind of mass particles.All mass particles created by this charge have a mass << than Mp. Like this: Epl. = G * M*M / Rc joule. Here M is interpreted as charge. But if we have an energy, we must have a mass: M = G * M * M / ( Rc * c^2). = ( (Rpl * C^2 / M ) * M * M ) / ( Rc * c^2 ) = (Rpl. / Rc) * M Now take: M = Mpl * alpha^0.5, R = Rpl * alpha^o.5 and Rc (Compton radius of electron or proton, taken from Compton wave lengths), you would have mass of electron Me <<< Mplanc (hypothetical limit common particle), . Yes. Is like the Coulomb law with charge "e", where we have epsilon zero as constant of space , here we have constant of gravity as constant of space. Both the charges "e" and "M" are property of the sub - particle of mater (the Democritis atom) , kind of "Preon, or prenon" I simply Call Charge. The sub-particle of matter (if it exist for real) is all-ways in movement "( (G)* (M / Rx) ) = ( R * c^2 / M ) * ( M * Rx ) , here charge M of constant of space G, Is anti -mass. Photon is coexistence with mass charge with anti mass . Here we have not: +M + -M = 0 But -M / M =1

Like you or not, i have to say that photon move with an heloidal movement in straight movement of two sub- particles that posses both electric and mass charge with opposite sign and with c velocity. In so called static status the sub - particles, move with c velocity in a central point, with the same c velocity, in a chest like spherical movement. Photons are structured by two mater, sub- particles with opposite electric and gravity "charges". Electron has a third sub- particle which is of kind -e, and -M, or +e, and +M. this define the status of electron or positron. When i visual them so, that doesn't mean i am sure. Maybe, they can be how i visual, when and if CERN would for sure decide if there is any -M,+M.

Quote Stranger 20 hours ago, dhimokritis said: The beliefs are personal. You believe in B.B, it is your personal right. This is not a matter of belief, but of evidence. ------------------------ dhimokritis said: The evidence, yes, may be personal and collective beliefs, based in some facts collected with material instruments - by material beings with some higher intelligence. From some facts, those beings may create hypothesis and theories. When the hypotheses are materialized, and became an objective evidence, which don’t live any tail behind, people believe in interpretations of hypothesis as truth, even though interpretation my be idealistic. Have not many hypothesis crashed, when material factors came in light? What about this: We can’t collect evidence for anti mass objects, because our instruments and we self, are massive and repellent for anti-mass objects. ---------------------- stranger 20 hours ago, dhimokritis said: I believe in eternal and infinite universe That is not, necessarily, incompatible with the Big Bang model. Unless you insist on an eternal, unchanging universe in which case, your belief is just plain wrong. dhimokritis said: I didn’t say eternal in your meaning. For me eternal means that is material, and the sub-particles that structure universe are eternal: not created and not annihilated. And they are particular even though of Planck sise. ------------- strange 20 hours ago, dhimokritis said: I won for sure the banned status. Nope. You might like to make yourself a martyr to your anti-science beliefs, but it takes more than just being wilfully ignorant. ----------------- dhimokritis said: Don’t be hypocrite and acetic. I have not any debit to you, to deserve that. “Facts don’t come naturally. Drama and opinions do. Factual knowledge has to be learned.” Gapminder: https://www.gapminder.org beecee Organism Senior Members 205 1244 posts Location: Maroubra Sydney Report post Posted 17 hours ago 20 hours ago, dhimokritis said: The beliefs are personal. You believe in B.B, it is your personal right. Not in the least, perhaps you didn't read my post in its entirety; I said, "The overwhelming evidence so far tells us that spacetime/universe [as we know it] did have a beginning at what we call the BB". Sometimes this evidence is called the pillars supporting the BB. They are, [1] The observed expansion, [2] The CMBR or relic heat from the BB, [3] The abundance of the lighter elements. Other evidence supporting a BB model are galactic distribution and Olber's paradox. ------------------- dhimokritis said I don’t deny evidences, I deny interpretation of those. And the conclusion: Created from nothing. Let take 1- Observed expansion. When was made this pillar susceptible? When authors has an evidence of “v” expansion > “c” . And this happened when instruments were perfection-ed for farther vision. And look: The cause of this was promptly found “ something is in space that cause it. Let find it now. Wasn’t it before? I believe in eternal and infinite universe, where for sake of two main forces of properties of matter: electric and gravity of sub-particles of mater, hold them selves together, and structure particles and bodies. ---------------- This does not invalidate the BB. See....http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html but essentially we do not really know if the universe is infinite or not. ----------------------- dhimokritis You say so? Why,--- when you are not sure? ---- Quote ___________ The space - time I think is not material, and cannot execute any force. The “space – time” for me is “space - anti “gravity”, I don't believe anyone has said that spacetime is a material thing, but something does not need to be a physical material thing to be real. Is a magnetic field real? Spacetime can be bent, warped, curved twisted in the presence of mass, which is then reflected in what we call gravity...In other words gravity is spacetime....is gravity real? _____________ dhimocritis You asked: Is a magnetic field real. O yes. And I think is something material in space about it: μ0 / 4*pi = M*R. / e^2 = 10^-7 N /A^2 ___________________ Quote I sincerely feel awful bad, reading your answer about mistakes in my post. I feel bad, because I am not a physicist. And you treated me like this. I am a curious person with some confuse ideas, with zero theoretical preparation. So then, why not listen to those that are physicists or cosmologists? Why not review the evidence supporting certain incumbent views like the BB? Then ask questions on anything you believe to be a problem...Leave the Hansel and Gretel type fairy tales to the likes of the Grimm Brothers and Walt. All I see till now about BB is fairy tales make sugared with some science for to be less dubious. .----------------------------- Quote Sorry for time lost for me. Your verdict about my post is clear. Your thread was moved to speculation because that's all it is...Again, as I said earlier, It would be very beneficial for yourself to familairise yourself fully with the BB model and why it is held in such high regard. ------------------ Why?

The beliefs are personal. You believe in B.B, it is your personal right. I believe in eternal and infinite universe, where for sake of two main forces of properties of matter: electric and gravity of sub-particles of mater, hold them selves together, and structure particles and bodies. The space - time I think is not material, and cannot execute any force. The “space – time” for me is “space - anti “gravity”, created by sub particles with property of anti mass, dispersed in all Euclidian space, around the bodies of “mass,, giving space some different property of ideal Euclidian space. The computer “meshes?” (simulations) have to do with different concentrations of sub particles of anti mass on the space around bodies. It is repulsive force of interaction of gravity of body’s mater with anti gravity of space that holds bodies in suspended status in space. Thanks for link. But I was full with “ Universal equalities “ of Gary Lyon Otto” I did not intend to influence in your knowledge and believes in them. In this conversation I won for sure the banned status. Mordred Resident Expert Resident Experts 1046 6024 posts Report post Posted 9 hours ago (edited) Mordred. I sincerely feel awful bad, reading your answer about mistakes in my post. I feel bad, because I am not a physicist. And you treated me like this. I am a curious person with some confuse ideas, with zero theoretical preparation. So i have nothing to tell about your teaching. My idea is that Constant of physic are “really physic” as counter part of equation, to hold concepts in balance. So if we have a mass, or charge in one side of physics equation, in the constants (that present in some manner their existence in the space) must be mass with anti mass, or electric charge with anti-electric charge. They do not annihilate each other. They create fields. In my post, the constant of gravity divided by h multiplied by frequency, with this huge amount of energy in denominator, confused me and gave hope for some thing new and stranger, that my have any link with my idea. After I treated all other constants of space with Planck constants, and I find some interesting results, in this direction. Sorry for time lost for me. Your verdict about my post is clear. Moderators 6456 39535 posts Location: Washington DC region Report post Posted 2 hours ago Thanks. warning given.

Thanks strange for help. My bad, maybe further i will be more correct.

Swanson What you call virtual particles give me creepy sensations. Well, there's some solid physics. Swanson. Please give me answers, if you see them somewhat that deserve answers from you, about my post. That is important for me for destruction of my “speculative hypothesis about classic physic that I think interfere with quantum theory, (where I am null of knowledge) I sincerely would valuate your thought, if they were not so laconic, and so firm. Quote Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To go to the fortress of ultimate darkness, click the up arrow ^ I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown. My SFN blog: Swans on Tea Strange SuperNerd Senior Members 2942 17470 posts Location: 珈琲店 Report post Posted 21 hours ago 22 hours ago, dhimokritis said: What you call virtual particles give me creepy sensations. Something that came from nothing They don't come from nothing. They come from the existing energy (you know mass and energy are equivalent?) Maybe if you understood, you wouldn't find it creepy. O yes. But what is the source of energy? Isn’t energy of gamma rays result of interaction of particles mass - electrons with anti-mass electrons So called anti mater Positrons ? 22 hours ago, dhimokritis said: And I think that common particles are structures of “Sub-particles of mater” Again, you would need some evidence of this. You see that my post is somewhat an argument, even though not an evidence. Two Planck particles in denominator of an equation are treated as energy. How? Each of them multiplied by c^2 give energy –in Joules, which further converted in electron volt. There are known other arguments. Where are gone mass and charge of photons in their creation, and how they reappear in photosynthesis? The my hypothesis is that they coexist in photon in form of sub particles mass and anti mass M / M and e / e in complete equilibrium of forces, and wee perceive only their fields c^2* R/ Rx and U*R / Rx and their c velocity after they are deliberated from third mass sub particle in structure of common sub particle. 22 hours ago, dhimokritis said: To be sure you want a dialog about my post, I want to ask this: (G*M) / R = C^2 where is gone mass? And is this C^2 a real C*C? Where does that equation come from? Is C supposed to be c? What do you mean, by "where is the mass"? And of course C^2 = C * C, that is what "squared" means. G*M / R in Planck constants is linked, I think, with those boundaries that are physics limit. G = (R*c^2 / M), M and R are mass and distance from counter part anti mass M. Hence the result is : G * M / R equal (R * c^2 / M) * M / R = c^2 Maybe I want to split hair, but we know that velocity is linked with some-think which is moving with an extreme velocity. So c * c , is because are two something: mass M and anti mass M Quote “Facts don’t come naturally. Drama and opinions do. Factual knowledge has to be learned.” Gapminder: https://www.gapminder.org beecee Organism Senior Members 205 1236 posts Location: Maroubra Sydney Report post Posted 20 hours ago (edited) On 5/23/2018 at 3:58 PM, dhimokritis said: Beecee, about your “tinged with unecessary arrogance, haughtiness and a probable underlying agenda.” I see out of theme and offensive. I am a curious citizen, that ask physicists about question that affect my sleep. So “please” give me an answer in theme, if you want a “Please” for sake of civility. Let me first apologise for the "muddled" comment, on the grounds that obviously English is not your first language. My "arrogance" comment though was more to do with your comment directed at Strange in his attempt to help you, thus...... Quote If you have nothing to say and find it unimportant for your interest let it go. But perhaps this could also be explained by the obvious that English is not your first language. What I will say at this time is that I believe the first requirement of anyone with criticism of the incumbent model, or the mainstream view, is to make sure they fully understand the mainstream view. Never mind. I am satisfied with your explanation. I have stressed your record about requirements. Let me ask you as an amateur too: Do you fully understand mainstream view? Some exponents of main - stream admits that even they don’t. I think that in speculations must be permitted different alternatives and ideas.. I would also add that your criticism of "coming from nothing" with regards to virtual particles is somewhat askew. Our best reasonings and thoughts at this time are that our very first fundamental particles arose from the decoupling of the Superforce at a short instant after the BB. My apologies again if I have not been of assistance, and my only excuse is that like you, I am also only an interested amateur. Bless you if you truly and fully understand. I don’t understand at all, B.B, SuperForce, coupling etc. I think they are some uncompressible for folk like me. And you have the right to say: then shut up. PS: Also evidence for virtual particles popping into and out of existence from "nothing" would be the Casimir Effect, although I'm willing to be corrected on that score. I too was been truing hard to understand Casimir effect. The electron shield of atoms of two plates must give an repelling force not attracting. But the fact that there must be some stronger force attractive, tingled in my mind about the role of gravitate attractive force of M sub-particles which conquers with electric repulsive force, which in the short distances and shire surface prevail the second. Edited 19 hours ago by beecee Quote Reply to this . Swanson What you call virtual particles give me creepy sensations. Well, there's some solid physics. Swanson. Please give me answers, if you see them somewhat that deserve answers from you, about my post. That is important for me for destruction of my “speculative hypothesis about classic physic that I think interfere with quantum theory, (where I am null of knowledge) I sincerely would valuate your thought, if they were not so laconic, and so firm. Quote Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To go to the fortress of ultimate darkness, click the up arrow ^ I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown. My SFN blog: Swans on Tea Strange SuperNerd Senior Members 2942 17470 posts Location: 珈琲店 Report post Posted 21 hours ago 22 hours ago, dhimokritis said: What you call virtual particles give me creepy sensations. Something that came from nothing They don't come from nothing. They come from the existing energy (you know mass and energy are equivalent?) Maybe if you understood, you wouldn't find it creepy. O yes. But what is the source of energy? Isn’t energy of gamma rays result of interaction of particles mass - electrons with anti-mass electrons So called anti mater Positrons ? 22 hours ago, dhimokritis said: And I think that common particles are structures of “Sub-particles of mater” Again, you would need some evidence of this. You see that my post is somewhat an argument, even though not an evidence. Two Planck particles in denominator of an equation are treated as energy. How? Each of them multiplied by c^2 give energy –in Joules, which further converted in electron volt. There are known other arguments. Where are gone mass and charge of photons in their creation, and how they reappear in photosynthesis? The my hypothesis is that they coexist in photon in form of sub particles mass and anti mass M / M and e / e in complete equilibrium of forces, and wee perceive only their fields c^2* R/ Rx and U*R / Rx and their c velocity after they are deliberated from third mass sub particle in structure of common sub particle. 22 hours ago, dhimokritis said: To be sure you want a dialog about my post, I want to ask this: (G*M) / R = C^2 where is gone mass? And is this C^2 a real C*C? Where does that equation come from? Is C supposed to be c? What do you mean, by "where is the mass"? And of course C^2 = C * C, that is what "squared" means. G*M / R in Planck constants is linked, I think, with those boundaries that are physics limit. G = (R*c^2 / M), M and R are mass and distance from counter part anti mass M. Hence the result is : G * M / R equal (R * c^2 / M) * M / R = c^2 Maybe I want to split hair, but we know that velocity is linked with some-think which is moving with an extreme velocity. So c * c , is because are two something: mass M and anti mass M Quote “Facts don’t come naturally. Drama and opinions do. Factual knowledge has to be learned.” Gapminder: https://www.gapminder.org beecee Organism Senior Members 205 1236 posts Location: Maroubra Sydney Report post Posted 20 hours ago (edited) On 5/23/2018 at 3:58 PM, dhimokritis said: Beecee, about your “tinged with unecessary arrogance, haughtiness and a probable underlying agenda.” I see out of theme and offensive. I am a curious citizen, that ask physicists about question that affect my sleep. So “please” give me an answer in theme, if you want a “Please” for sake of civility. Let me first apologise for the "muddled" comment, on the grounds that obviously English is not your first language. My "arrogance" comment though was more to do with your comment directed at Strange in his attempt to help you, thus...... Quote If you have nothing to say and find it unimportant for your interest let it go. But perhaps this could also be explained by the obvious that English is not your first language. What I will say at this time is that I believe the first requirement of anyone with criticism of the incumbent model, or the mainstream view, is to make sure they fully understand the mainstream view. Never mind. I am satisfied with your explanation. I have stressed your record about requirements. Let me ask you as an amateur too: Do you fully understand mainstream view? Some exponents of main - stream admits that even they don’t. I think that in speculations must be permitted different alternatives and ideas.. I would also add that your criticism of "coming from nothing" with regards to virtual particles is somewhat askew. Our best reasonings and thoughts at this time are that our very first fundamental particles arose from the decoupling of the Superforce at a short instant after the BB. My apologies again if I have not been of assistance, and my only excuse is that like you, I am also only an interested amateur. Bless you if you truly and fully understand. I don’t understand at all, B.B, SuperForce, coupling etc. I think they are some uncompressible for folk like me. And you have the right to say: then shut up. PS: Also evidence for virtual particles popping into and out of existence from "nothing" would be the Casimir Effect, although I'm willing to be corrected on that score. I too was been truing hard to understand Casimir effect. The electron shield of atoms of two plates must give an repelling force not attracting. But the fact that there must be some stronger force attractive, tingled in my mind about the role of gravitate attractive force of M sub-particles which conquers with electric repulsive force, which in the short distances and shire surface prevail the second. Edited 19 hours ago by beecee Quote Reply to this .

Strange What you call virtual particles give me creepy sensations. Something that came from nothing, I think open the path for fantoms and specters. I think that if science treats the constants of Planck as the boundaries of reality, where is the only limit that the charge (of gravity) has the same dimension of mass particles, then the Heisenberg’s uncertainty is out of meaning. And so is the absurdity infinity of quanta : E = h / dt = infinite for dt =0 You say: It would be an option if there were any evidence of these Planck particles. Every body know that to create an evident “ Planck-particle” you need another much more powerful CERN. I call this a “hypothetic Planck particle”. And I think that common particles are structures of “Sub-particles of mater” every one of them possess properties of electric charges, and gravity charges, both with inverse attractive and repulsive ability. Yesterday I gave an option of three Hypothetic Planck sub – particles of matter, when I made a parallelism of Newton and Coulomb. Two of them are “antis” and create an electric and gravity fields, linked with the third in center. This structure make a common particle if you put, instead of Planck Radius “R” (in denominator) a Compton radius (for ex. Re = 2.81794017 * 10^-15) you will have the electric and gravity energy of electron particle. To be sure you want a dialog about my post, I want to ask this: (G*M) / R = C^2 where is gone mass? And is this C^2 a real C*C?

It was evident for me that my post was to be pushed in Speculation. Seems to me, here is some kind of heresy if somebody post in Science sections (reserved for physicists) some-thing that seems to be confusing, muddled, with hidden “agenda” ?!. Yes. I am a common citizen not physicist, I wants to know, not what is known and sure proved till now, not what some physicist publishes as true verity (seems to me deserve to be published here, or in section of faith), but persuasive explanations about a huge amounts of secrets of nature. There are so many statements in today physics science, which go further the limit of compression as to became myths. And isn’t there more confusing that “universe is only space - time”. That space, possess a huge amount of energy, because space is “vacuum” and has nothing inside? And what I know till now about space, are only “constants of space”. Seems to me that constants of space are physic, I mean possess properties of mater that interacts with mass bodies from elementary common particles till so called black bodies. That energy is the unison of mass mater with anti-mass mater. My post, I think, asked this question : Posses space some kind of energies in form of particles? Was my interpretation about Planck “particles” an option? Sorry that I am not answering of every bodies post. An- other question about link of gravity with electricity, and inside the theme of post about “space is physic”, which seems to me strange is: Coulomb and Newton similarity. e*e / (4*pi* ε0 * R) = e * (e/e) * (U1*1) / RPl = e * Upl = E pl Here (4*pi* ε0) = 1 / ( e / (U1* 1) ) = 1.439964392810^-9 (V*R) Converted this energy in mass : E pl / C^2 = Mpl And: G * M^2 / R = (R * C^2 / M) * ( M*M) / R ) = M * C^2 = Epl. Converted This energy in mass : E pl / C^2 = MPl. Seems to me that e, e and M, M are “property of some kind sub -particle of matter”. And result of interaction of them give --- “Mpl” as “hypothetic particle of Planck”. Beecee, about your “tinged with unecessary arrogance, haughtiness and a probable underlying agenda.” I see out of theme and offensive. I am a curious citizen, that ask physicists about question that affect my sleep. So “please” give me an answer in theme, if you want a “Please” for sake of civility.

Well. I see the interest about my questions from three participants of forum. Let me express my gratitude for lenience and your curiosity. Now I will elaborate why I decide to ask the forum some questions that I know nobody of you like them, because they smell of some kind of push in “speculations”. Nobody of us know why this constant of physic has a space in “table of constants”. Exact this was my excitement to ask, to know maybe there is any hinted meaning non elaborated till end for some reason. And I am susceptible that maybe this is not elaborated because it opens the box of Pandora in physic. Even though this constant is not known as an Einstein constant, I think that it has to do with role of his idea that gravity plays an important role in micro-cosmos of physic. Remember his complain about some lack in quantum, the lack of role of gravity. And we see in this formula of constant of gravity a link about gravity and quanta. My answer for every body: Sensei. Yes."All depends on context, which you didn't provide". The formula that I write, if you would have scrutinized, you will find the context: A huge amount of two Planck mass as result of calculation. That is a huge amount of energy. Doesn’t this intrigued your curiosity? And I think this is for Strange and Mordred. Strange. Well. I suppose that you, with your baggage in physic, will be more helpful for some-body that asked for help. Instead you hurried to stop with “spec of mass”. Yes, this speck of mass (Planck particle, Maybe Planck charge of mas) was my initial impulse to ask. As for: is Newton constant, “constant of space”, I think yes, there it applied - in space. Right! As you say that constants of space are: ε0, μ0, and RK, Z0 , h maybe etc. I think deserve to be treated differently till now, if they are really Physic. Mordred. You say: “Strange asked a valid question I don't even recognize that calculation or value so was curious myself as to what it means or the source you got it from.” I think that your own answers about my questions, will be valuable for me because you as theoretician could be scrutinize this “enigmatic constant” more profoundly. And you make me smile about “source you got it from”. O my! A common person is not allowed to ask questions if they are not from a source for to understand if deserve or not, to give an answer. Now what about: G / (h * C / 2*pi.) = ( R * C^2 / M ) / [ ( R * M * C * 2*pi ) * ( C / 2 * pi * ? ) ] = = 1 / M * M 1 / Kg^2. Here R and M Planck constants. Now send me in “speculation”, if you don’t want to answer here. .

Strange. Really --- I don’t remember where I read this kind of energy called Einstein’s energy of gravity. In fact I find it in :http://physics.gov/cuu/Constant/Table…..with name “Newtonian constant of gravity over h bar.” If you have nothing to say and find it unimportant for your interest let it go.

Hi every body. I want to ask some questions about the Einstein’s gravity constant of space. In co. data I check: G / ( h *C / (2*pi)) = 6.707524193*10^-39 (GeV./c^2) ^-2 In fact : [G / ( h*c / (2*pi*?)] = 2.110689511*10^15 = = 1 / (2.176646105*10^-8)^2 = 1 / Mpl^2 (1 / kg^2). The mass of Planck particles ( 1 / (MPl.* MPl.)) converted in energy: 1 / [(MPl.* 10^3) * (5.60958912*10^23)]^2 = 1 / 1.490863053*10^38 (1 / giga e.V.) The questions: 1- Is it real this kind of energy? Aren’t Planck mass particles the source of this kind of energy? Aren’t those Planck mass in space since G is constant of space? 2- This kind of energy create attractive force or repulsive? I mean is this energy gravitate or anti-gravitate? What is the physic’s meaning of ”joule” and“joule^-1” “e” and “e^-1”, “M” and “M^-1” . “F” and “F^-1) I am not a physicist. I thought that is interesting to know the physic’s meaning of “Constants of space” if they have one.