Edgard Neuman

I found my mistake. This function is discontinuous at every decimal number that ends with zeros.. and continuous otherwise

ok, bye: ! no but seriously (sorry i'm drunk right now), if you take e (as in epsilon) is obvious that f([x-e;x+e]) is limited.. I mean there's a number of digits n so that [x-e;x+e] is in [(n digit of x)0;(n digit of x)99999....] and so f(x) is in (you know what) I'll be much bold (and maybe wrong) : if there's a range limit on Y when there's a limit on X, THEN there's a limit on X when there's a limit on Y

I call to your sagacity to figure it out by yourself 😉

Hi, I've seen a video that reminded me of the definition of continuity (that you can find here). Somehow it seemed it was not what my "humble intuition" (sorry for that) excepted (although I remember it from school).. (no I don't confuse continuity with derivability ok). My intuition is "a function that you can draw without lifting the pen".. So I thought maybe I can find a function that is obviously not drawable without lifting the pen, but still match the classic definition for continuity, and I found a very simple one : Take any real number x, write it in decimal, and then recompute it in base 8 So, in "math" (I try my best) term : x = sum(dn * 10^n] f(x) = sum(dn * 8^n] (where dn are the decimal digits For instance : 0.5 ⇒ 5/8 = 0.625 0.1122 ⇒ 1/8 + 1/8^2 + 2/8^3 + 2 / 8^4 =0.14501953125 This function is defined for any real AND we can always find a box as little as we want around any point for instance, we know that if x is in [0.12364...(n digits)0 ;0.12364...(n digits)99999] f(x) is in [f(0.12364...(n digits));f(0.12364...(n digits))+ 8 ^(-n)] and we can take as many digits as we want. And we also know that this function do have "jumps" everywhere, in any segment Am I getting something wrong ?

hi, this may be a dumb question, but I'm wondering (read carefully every details) : Can we use a very strong electric field to separate electrons from nucleus of some hydrogen or helium gas (a macroscopic quantity, not just some particles, it's not a particle accelerator), then accelerate the nucleus' at high speeds using electric fields, then making them collide in large quantities... (and maybe uses the electrons at the other side to go back with nucleus at the end) and then use the fusion energy obtained to power the whole machine ? thanks

Sorry but I have no more time for this. Does anybody have a valid reason to believe negative rest energy/mass (if you think it's not the same thing, that's not my problem) particle can't exist ? So "being an object" isn't a real thing, just like "being a particle". The metal of you cars "change its shapes", just like the energy of your particle "change its shapes". And the quantity of object that depend of kinetic energy of the cars, isn't frame dependent. Think about that. (I would have no problem explaining to you how it is possible, it's one of the thought experiment you have to understand to really understand the beauty of special relativity.. you would need to think about "inner" kinetic energy (frame independant; that can be generalized as thermal energy as long as you accept it can be macroscopical as in your cars) and "outer" kinetic energy (frame dependant, that is indeed the kinetic energy of the center of mass)... and then when you understand the "hierarchy" of systems, you would naturally conclude that obviously "inert mass" IS most certainly the inner kinetic energy of particles 🤷‍♂️)

So I repeat once again, because you don't seem to think. I've written this 3 times now. SO PLEASE, READ AND THINK. Your model : particle = "matter" with properties " mass" and "energy". I understand that. Thank you. That's how you see things. And you have a lot of people that write books that think the same. OK. So you think there is something called "matter" that exists. and IT CAN have mass and energy. NOW. I have 2 proton. SO that's "2 proton matter" what ever that means (and "rest mass" property ). I accelerate them. SO That "2 proton matter" that have "a lot kinetic energy" as properties, (like their position, speed, that are also properties. I know what a property is thank you, I have 25 years of software development) THEY MEET. Now you have 1000 particles. That's " 1000 particle matter" and "some mass and energy" (that is according to the conservation of mass energy). IF "particle matter" is something that "EXISTS", where does the "1000 particle matter" comes from ? Was it in the two proton ? Does "2 proton matter"/ 1000 = 1000 heavy particles ? I'm sorry, you're saying that "something" exists by itself, but that thing doesn't obey a conservation law. So maybe you're just wrong. (By the way, if you knew logic, you would now that if something is "constant" it's usually indicate that it's not a "true" property, but the result of a law. Like PI isn't a property of circle of radius 1... that's too meta.. in that case, we can agree that a property is an aspect of the way something exists and interacts with the rest of the universe)

You know that it's originally Einstein's idea ? That's "mass energy equivalence" . There was, once a "law of conservation of mass". And then a "law of conservation of energy". AND THEN, in 1905, Einstein discovered the TRUE LAW : the conservation of mass/energy. Maybe you don't read enough of what I write. You suppose there is "something" else than energy, that go into particles. OK. I take 2 protons. I accelerate them. They have rest mass of two protons and a lot of kinetic energy, but in opposite direction. They interact. A thousand of various particle are created. What are the new particles made of ? Is there something else we had to add to the system to make those particles ? You may talk to me about "particle / anti particles" pair from the void. The particle / antiparticle annihilation is giving energy. So the opposite reaction need energy. (Virtual pair may exist a short time but can't last (I don't believe it, but it's how your physic model works).. ) Particles physics doesn't work if you don't accept mass/energy equivalence. Sorry for your "caterogy". Does one of them creates problem ? I read about the problem of negative inertia. There's good articles about the trouble with negative mass, and I know there's various analysis with different results. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass

That's a trap. You answering my original question doesn't require me to dive into this question. (I know there are studies and as far as we know it's the same.). I have no reason to doubt that the thing that provoke both effects and measurements (the gravitationnal field and the resistance to forces) is one unique thing. I know what energy is. I know what mass is. I'm explaining to you that it's the same stuff that make both. Have you heard of nuclear reactions and particle accelerators ? Do you even understand relativity ? That a particle gain apparent mass when accelerating ?

Yeah it is. So really you all don't understand mass / energy equivalence ? http://ifsa.my/articles/mass-energy-one-and-the-same

Ok as I suspect, you are not understanding me. ALL OF YOU. READ THIS : MASS IS ENERGY. I'm talking about negative rest energy that is negative mass. You talking to me about RELATIVE FORM OF ENERGY is meaningless. Talking about "negative mass" IS talking about "negative energy". You may not "understand" that, but that's a very known fact. Energy you get from the sun, that make you leave.. comes from mass of hydrogen.. I already said that about 10 times. Evoking a "category mistake", that is about logic, that is the representation of things and not the things itself.. is .. a category mistake. I'm not even trying to be funny. You're talking to me about the name you give things and how you categorize them. That's not physics, that's philosophy. Energy is the name you give to a quantity that can change form in many process. Mass is a property of object that is observable by how they bend space time. It appear that rest particle have rest mass. NOW. You can convert mass into energy and energy into mass. EVEN THE REST MASS. So the law of conservation is the law of conservation of "MASS/ENERGY". If you could split a atom, you have part of the mass of the atom (that was really strong force energy) converted into OTHER FORMS of energy. I don't make a category mistake : your categories are wrong.

"This will lead you into nonsense if you are not careful. I fear it is already doing so. " OK. HOW ? WHY ? I'm sorry I need arguments. I'm not buying your "vision of things".. " a category mistake" ? What does that even mean ? There is a "category law" in the universe? ". A physical system that has energy may also have a shape." Uh thank you. I wasn't talking about the "shape" of a solid object, I was talking about differents forms mass/energy can take. I am really really astonished. You know about how quantum physics works. RIGHT ? You throw 2 protons against each other. AND BY CHANGING THE ENERGY YOU PUT INTO, YOU GET MORE AND MORE PARTICLE OF VARIOUS NATURE. Supposing that "something more" is needed to make a particle than energy, would physically imply particle accelerators don't work.. You had "energy" and now you have "various particles". How does that even work according to you ? In that scenario, how can you not agree that mass is energy and that there is no additional charge that are conserved that the one that are opposite to each other. "Everything is made of energy" is a Einstein quote. You understand it when you understand the meaning of e=mc². I assumed every physist know that mass is a form of energy. There's tons of video explaining to everybody that a majority of the mass of a proton is the potential energy of strong force. Don't you know about that ?

"BTW, convertibles and roofless cars exist." You don't seem to get my metaphor. Convertibles exist, therefor, in that metaphor, your model (your "car with roof") isn't the law because it works. You're telling me I don't undertand things, by not giving me the detail of the argument, I supposedly don't understand ? You didn't give me any science by saying "that's how the model is build". If anything, if it's a choice of the model, it ain't a proven fact. Why does the model require energy to be "a property" and what does that even mean is my question. I don't understand that rule. That's why, because you pretend to do, you can answer me. Right ? Science I believe, but you're not science until you have arguments. Science is proven by experiments, not model. I don't have to "trust" you. "The energy of a single isolated particle is meaningless" OK, WHY DO YOU EVEN BELIEVE THAT ? A single particle doesn't exist, does not a rest mass ? Maybe you don't understand me, because you don't understand that mass IS energy. A rest mass isn't convertible into energy ? Is that "science" of yours written somewhere ? Give me the article of Wikipedia, or the link, that demonstrate that a single particle with its rest mass (that is SIMPLY CONVERTIBLE INTO ENERGY.. "massless" particles, using it's antiparticle) isn't measurable.. Let's take a time to think about it. How many photons does a particle and a antiparticle annihilation. One ? Two ? Three ? Do you believe there is a "photon" charge that is conserved and we don't know about ? Saying that energy has to be in forms of Particles.. OK. but saying more than that, imply particle are more than there charge and that something more exists IMPLY a conservation law.. and so some type of charges.. so no, I'm definitely NOT buying your apparent "property" thing. I read books, scientific revues on a daily basis, and nowhere I have ever somebody write that energy (Not kinetic energy of course. I speak about MASS/ENERGY) is relative. Matter EXISTS. In opposite you can read ANYWHERE that matter is a form of energy. Have you heard of particle accelerator ? Are the particle emitted not real ? What are they made of ? What did we use to make them ? So I'm really curious to understand why you are all convinced of that. The fact that I apparently have to explain MASS/ENERGY equivalence is really weird.

Sorry, I understand but then : a none particle would probably emit "none-photons" (not ANTI photon which I KNOW are the same as photon) with negative energy (leaving positive kinetic energy) I wonder, is there a symmetry that "reverse" energy ?

Thank you, I let you handle the semantics and the philosophy. I'm free to believe any idea, let it be any part of any model. As often, you seem to have "philosophical" reactions of pain and taboos when I present my "naive understanding of thing" If you know the real solid argument that justify why your model is that way and not another, feel free to explain it to me. Otherwise, you may as well be speaking about religion and dogma to me. It's like saying : "we don't remove the roof of cars. We have cars with roof, they are very successful". That's not an argument. I often ask question here that OBVIOUSLY I can't find in 2 seconds in Wikipedia using Google. I've been asking question a long time, so of course, the ones that still aunt me are not trivial. But for some reason, when I come here, the reaction is "Da ! equation ". Or "read this !" (I read, and it's something else.. like the sea of Feynman) or "let my proove to you that you're a idiot", or "it's like that, because that's the model". And I NEVER HAVE THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION But here we are talking about REST energy. REST mass. A none particle would probably emit "none-photons" with negative energy (leaving positive kinetic energy)

But this is a state of modesty saying "we don't know if there is something else", not saying "we know there is something else". Energy is conserved, so the fact that energy must take a form (of particles), doesn't imply that everything isn't made of energy. It's like saying "A rock always have a shape so there's something else than just rock".. Let's agree by saying that "information" imply energy must have some shape (that you call system) withing constrained form that are particles. But then that's why I ask the question : can there be "true" negative system, that would completely cancel positive ones

I understand I go a step further than what's is known. But whatever a particle is made of seems entirely convertible into "radiations", and opposite charges seems to be able to "cancel" themselves into nothing. So whatever the substance is, it's all convertible into the lowest form of it that is radiation. AND if you understand relativity, you know that relativistic mass is mass. Energy has the same effect than mass. That's the point of "e=mc²". So for instance the "thing" that is kinetic energy of a fast particle, has the same effect of the "thing" that is rest mass of a resting particle. You know that two "light" particles with high kinetic energy can effectively transform into "2 heavy rest mass" particle (that's how particle accelerator). A particle accelerator take energy and transform it into matter (real rest matter of heavy particles). Since "energy" in the energy form (like real relative kinetic energy) can transform into "mass" in the rest form, I can assume it's made of the same thing in different forms. (For some reason I thought it was common knowledge) But OK. I suppose it's only my interpretation. So why would a "none-electron" do ? Why "energy conservation" (which is not energy loss) wouldn't apply to negative energy ? To be honnest, I'm fearly sure there is a reason why there can't be none-particles.. (like for instance all the problems with negative inertia etc)

So why would a single (ordinary) electron emit real photons (not virtual) in the void ?

Why an electron doesn't go into a lower energy level, lower than its REST mass ? (Are you talking about negative kinetic energy ?) I think I know what you're talking about. You are thinking about an electron in an ATOM. An electron in a atom emit a photon and goes into a lower orbit. So I'm going to write it again : Matter lose energy via radiations because the relative motion of their charges (the structure they form, the orbital energies etc, their relative thermal motion) comes to equilibrium by emitting photons (basically emitting momentum). It's the thermal radiation, or electron losing "orbital" energy. The energy you lose is never the rest energy. (rest energy of an electron is a constant) A single stable particle doesn't decay by losing energy.

But why would they ? since electron and positron don't vanish into thin air

losing energy how ? You're talking about thermal radiation ? Matter lose energy via radiations because the relative motion of their charges comes to equilibrium by emitting photons. It's the thermal radiation. A single stable particle doesn't decay by losing energy, why would the none particle do the same ??

("though they are mathematically compatible." . OK. THANK YOU. I've been promoting this for 20 years now. Void is made of none-particles and QM is only statistical but I digress) 1) energy is mass. Mass is energy at rest. All particle are "made of" some energy. Particle and antiparticle anihilate into energy... it imply all particle are made of energy. 2) rest mass isn't relative to the observer Just to be sure everybody correctly understand my question : Positron have positive mass. When you combine a rest electron and a rest positron, you get (at least) their rest mass in energy (according to e=mc²). I'm talking about negative mass electron (with positive charge).. It's not a positron. A positron have positive energy. Here, I would invert rest mass. Let's call it "none-particle". (none-electron none-positron etc) When you combine a rest electron and a rest none-electron, you would get 0, NONE energy (so it's not a positron). The none-electron would have a negative rest mass. To be exact, it's not one of the CPT inversion. It's not a relativistic inversion. It concern the "rest" mass. (You should all know that a positron is an electron seen in reverse in time. Do you ?) Rest mass isn't frame dependent. It's not "time" dependent. Mass that is "dependant of the frame" is the relativistic mass. Ok but why didn't Dirac assume there could be negative energy electrons AND ALSO negative energy protons or positrons (with the negative charges corresponding) ? Since we invert rest mass.. we have to always invert electric charge, but we can invert mass and charge indepently in this scenario.. inverting one of CPT give antiparticles, but here i'm interested in only inverting mass. Since we want the particle to be the cancellation we have to invert charge, but you can do the same with other type of particle, and antiparticles as well.. Since a anti-electron has a positive mass, we can create none-anti-electron with negative mass and positive charge.

Hi, I'm curious about a type of particle that WOULD NOT be anti particles, but real negative energy particles : They would be define as : P + None(P) = nothing ( instead of P + None(P) = (energy / mass of both) ) all the charges would be opposite, and also mass... is it possible ? I suspect it contradict some equations..

I made a graphic : Apparently the correct formula for gas pressure in gravity field is the barometric formula. The pressure is proportional to exp(-h).. So, ok, it will grow slower than gravity (when you get closer to the center).. and that's a problem for self stabilization. I do still believe that surface tension around the sphere would prevent it to bend into the gravity well.. because it would create more pressure in the other side.. (but then the sphere would need to be very strong in tension) The question of a hermetic balloon around some atmosphere isn't simple.

I really don't understand what difficulties you have with the concept of a balloon filled with heated gas from the star. It's not a "free wind in space". It's a dense atmosphere of several Pa heated by the star.. The pressure has to build up. The mass loss from the wind is negligible for the star, but since it's hermetical, the matter stays inside the balloon and over time, the density gets higher (Does "hermetical" means something else in english ?). No matter comes out. Since the star is creating heat, the pressure will inevitably build up inside. It is sealed. The title of my question is "CLOSED" dyson sphere. Sealed, Hermetical. I never said the opposite. I only said we should vent the sphere only because we don't want the pressure to get higher than necessary..At some point, since there a star inside, the pressure would get too high. It's exactly like a pressure cooker, with the heat source in the center. It is first sealed, but then there's a vent so the pressure doesn't get to high and blow the cooker. The vents are there ONLY to control the pressure. It is not related to the positioning of the sphere, I never said that. Gravity creates the gradient, and so the star keeps at the center. A gradient of pressure means that yes, AT EQUILIBRIUM there the same pressure at all point, BUT if you move the sphere, the pressure on the closest side is higher. Can't you understand what a radial gradient of pressure is ? You say the pressure is "imaginary". So you put a star inside a hermetical container, a star the constantly emit energy, and the pressure wouldn't build up ? How does this work in you mind ? If it's not by means of matter, it's by mean of temperature. I talk about pressure. I'm curious. You don't even need the heat or the wind to keep the mass at the center. Suppose you put a hermetical balloon around a cold gas planet, and suppose of course the material of the balloon is strong enough to support tangential forces.. How could the balloon fall into the planet ?? The balloon will stay around. You can imagine that a part of the balloon starts to sink into the planet. But since we assume the sphere is strong enough, it won't happen because the balloon isn't extensible. Now, if the pressure inside is equal to the gravity of the balloon, the whole thing can be stabilized with minimal tensions, even if the balloon is a thick material like tons of metal. In the worst case, we can also simply control the position of the sphere by means of propulsion system around the sphere. Listen I'm going to not answer anymore. My explanation are very simple I don't like to repeat everything multiple times because you are allergic to "new ideas". Here I'm only discussing your inability to understand what I explain and you inability to picture something that is not a star with a free wind, but a closed pressurized sphere. I come here very rarely because I always expect this kind of closed minds, and I'm never disappointed.