Equivalence of Mass and Charge

[jerrygg38]

Approximately 80 years ago, Einstein believed that the units of mass and charge were identical. However he did not proceed in this direction.

For an electrical universe, everything could be described in electrical terms. Likewise everything could be described in waves. Thus kilograms are not necessary to describe the universe. There are three major solutions possible. Mass = Charge x velocity, mass = charge/ Velocity and mass =charge.

I have studied all three for 27 years since 1981. However it takes many years to rule out each possibility. The Einsteinian solution has been my last attempt. It appears that Einstein was correct.

 

For the Dot-Wave Unified Field theory the units are as follows

Mass =Coulombs

Charge = Coulombs

Energy = Cou Met^3 /Sec^2

Coulomb constant K = Met^3 /Cou Sec^2

Force = Cou Met /Sec^2

Momentum MV = Cou Met /Sec

Planks Constant h = Cou Met^2 /sec

Permeability = Met/Cou

Permitivity = Cou Sec^2 /met^3

Voltage = Met^2 /Sec^2

Current = Cou / Sec

Impedance = Met^2 / Cou Sec

Gravitational constant = Met^3 / Cou Sec^2

Power = Cou Met^2 / Sec^3

Flux density = 1/ sec

Inductance = Met^2 / Cou

Capacitance = Cou Sec^2 / Met ^2

 

This system of units if the meters/coulombs/seconds/

 

It is also possible to replace coulombs with radians per second for the Meters/radians/seconds system.

 

This conversion system permits the equations of gravity, space and time, the cycle time of the universe and many other things to be calculated.

[mooeypoo]

wow, uhm, first, put references and substantiations to what you're claiming.. specifically, what do you mean about Einstein "believing" mass and charge was identical?? I.. don't.. quite know this hypothesis (or "belief"). Einstein wasn't too prone on believing, he substantiated and worked hard on proving his statements and claims.

 

As was pointed out in the other threads you've opened, the Universe has MANY OTHER FORCES in it other than electromagnetism. There are, specifically, four fundamental fources. Electromagnetism is ONE of them.

 

The universe is not "electrical". If you think it is, you need to prove it.

 

Your claims about mass = charge * velocity are unphysical to say the least. Simply 'stating this' does not make it so. For that matter, unless we are talking about extreme velocities (close to the speed of light), mass does not depend on velocity, and there *ARE* many many many objects that have mass and absolutely 0 charge (I can gve you examples of a few out of my recent EnM homework

 

 

 

Everything else you're putting here, well, it's physically wrong notations and units, so I don't quite kniow how to begin addressing this.

 

There's nothing in the real world to support what you're saying. If there is, you need to present it.

[D H]

The proton is about 1836 times as massive as an electron, but has exactly the same charge as an electron (sans a sign change). The top quark is about 338,000 times as massive as an electron, but has only 2/3 the charge of an electron. The neutron and neutrino have zero charge, yet neither has zero mass (and the two have vastly different masses). Mass and charge are fundamentally different.

[jerrygg38]

wow, uhm, first, put references and substantiations to what you're claiming.. specifically, what do you mean about Einstein "believing" mass and charge was identical?? I.. don't.. quite know this hypothesis (or "belief"). Einstein wasn't too prone on believing, he substantiated and worked hard on proving his statements and claims.

 

JG: There was a story on Einstein long ago and he wrote on his chalk board that M = Q. That was his belief but he never proceeded with working on it. I saw this long ago and unfortunately cannot remember whether it was a tv documentary or book about Einstein. I only remember him standing by the board with the simple equation.

 

As was pointed out in the other threads you've opened, the Universe has MANY OTHER FORCES in it other than electromagnetism. There are, specifically, four fundamental fources. Electromagnetism is ONE of them.

 

JG: In my Dot-Wave unified field theory all forces are electrical in nature. I will show the equations for all the forces in due time.

 

The universe is not "electrical". If you think it is, you need to prove it.

 

JG: I only have a plus charge, a minus charge and a bipolar neutral charge to build the universe. The three ingredients produce everything. If you need more than that, you are producing a more complex and unnecessary universe.

 

Your claims about mass = charge * velocity are unphysical to say the least.

 

JG: It does not mean that mass is exactly the same as charge. It only means that they are sisters. The simple charge is a DC charge. Mass is a bipolar charge which has zero net DC charge but has an AC charge. Thus the mass of the Earth produces a huge AC gravitational field.

This field impinges upon the moon and produces AC eddy currents. Thus we have the equivalent of an AC motor. The AC fields are common to everything in the universe.

 

 

Simply 'stating this' does not make it so. For that matter, unless we are talking about extreme velocities (close to the speed of light), mass does not depend on velocity, and there *ARE* many many many objects that have mass and absolutely 0 charge (I can gve you examples of a few out of my recent EnM homework

 

JG: You are correct that mass has zero DC charge. As far as mass changing with velocity, the Einsteinian formula provides the best fit expression for orbital motion. This is important as we look at the electron as it merges into the proton to form the neutron. The velocity at the radius of the proton approaches 0.9186C. This gives the electron a mass of 2.53043 times the mass of the electron at rest.

Unfortunately physicists has believed that the electron did not merge into the proton to form the electron.

The 0.9186C velocity is also the velocity of the u-mesons within the protons. Unfortunately physicists have not taken the Einsteinian formulations into account. If they understood that we would have simple photonic energy sources today instead of building huge linear machines for billions of dollars just to split the protons.

 

 

 

Everything else you're putting here, well, it's physically wrong notations and units, so I don't quite kniow how to begin addressing this.

 

JG: The whole basis of the notations is that the universe is more simple that one imagines. Einstein and Mach recognized. Some modern physicists also believe this but people are stuck with incorrect ideas.

The expanding universe is another fallacy which I will address in the weeks to come.

 

There's nothing in the real world to support what you're saying. If there is, you need to present it.

 

 

JG: I will present many new things herein. I have sent 100 copies of my theory to physics professors all over the world. It is a difficult thing to do because the establishment tends to maintain itself. I am an independent theoretical thinker. Just a BSEE (Summa Cum Laude) Engineer who has worked on this project since 1981. Now at 70 years, I have finished my study.

 

The proton is about 1836 times as massive as an electron, but has exactly the same charge as an electron (sans a sign change). The top quark is about 338,000 times as massive as an electron, but has only 2/3 the charge of an electron. The neutron and neutrino have zero charge, yet neither has zero mass (and the two have vastly different masses). Mass and charge are fundamentally different.

 

JG: They are indeed different but similar. Charge is DC whereas mass is AC.

The basic structure of the universe is the dot with a charge of:

Dot charge = 1.3144E-57 Coulombs

The dot has electrical energy and momentum but no mass'

There are 1.41605E38 negative dots per electron and the same amount of positive dots per proton.

The bipolar dot has zero DC charge. It is composed of one plus dot and one minus dot in a well. the mass of the dot pair is

Md = 7.33982E-69Kg (Where kg is the same as AC coulombs)

There are 2.27883E41 bipolar dots per protons

There are 1.24109E38 bipolar dots per electron

 

When we look at the Heisenberg uncertainty principle we should really rename it the Heisenberg mass to charge conversion principle. All the time bipolar dots change into plus and minus dots and visa versa. Mass is converted into electrical energy and then electrical energy is converted into matter. That is why the Heisenberg principle exists.

 

wow, uhm, first, put references and substantiations to what you're claiming.. specifically, what do you mean about Einstein "believing" mass and charge was identical?? I.. don't.. quite know this hypothesis (or "belief"). Einstein wasn't too prone on believing, he substantiated and worked hard on proving his statements and claims.

 

JG: There was a story on Einstein long ago and he wrote on his chalk board that M = Q. That was his belief but he never proceeded with working on it. I saw this long ago and unfortunately cannot remember whether it was a tv documentary or book about Einstein. I only remember him standing by the board with the simple equation.

 

As was pointed out in the other threads you've opened, the Universe has MANY OTHER FORCES in it other than electromagnetism. There are, specifically, four fundamental fources. Electromagnetism is ONE of them.

 

JG: In my Dot-Wave unified field theory all forces are electrical in nature. I will show the equations for all the forces in due time.

 

The universe is not "electrical". If you think it is, you need to prove it.

 

JG: I only have a plus charge, a minus charge and a bipolar neutral charge to build the universe. The three ingredients produce everything. If you need more than that, you are producing a more complex and unnecessary universe.

 

Your claims about mass = charge * velocity are unphysical to say the least.

 

JG: It does not mean that mass is exactly the same as charge. It only means that they are sisters. The simple charge is a DC charge. Mass is a bipolar charge which has zero net DC charge but has an AC charge. Thus the mass of the Earth produces a huge AC gravitational field.

This field impinges upon the moon and produces AC eddy currents. Thus we have the equivalent of an AC motor. The AC fields are common to everything in the universe.

 

 

Simply 'stating this' does not make it so. For that matter, unless we are talking about extreme velocities (close to the speed of light), mass does not depend on velocity, and there *ARE* many many many objects that have mass and absolutely 0 charge (I can gve you examples of a few out of my recent EnM homework

 

JG: You are correct that mass has zero DC charge. As far as mass changing with velocity, the Einsteinian formula provides the best fit expression for orbital motion. This is important as we look at the electron as it merges into the proton to form the neutron. The velocity at the radius of the proton approaches 0.9186C. This gives the electron a mass of 2.53043 times the mass of the electron at rest.

Unfortunately physicists has believed that the electron did not merge into the proton to form the electron.

The 0.9186C velocity is also the velocity of the u-mesons within the protons. Unfortunately physicists have not taken the Einsteinian formulations into account. If they understood that we would have simple photonic energy sources today instead of building huge linear machines for billions of dollars just to split the protons.

 

 

 

Everything else you're putting here, well, it's physically wrong notations and units, so I don't quite kniow how to begin addressing this.

 

JG: The whole basis of the notations is that the universe is more simple that one imagines. Einstein and Mach recognized. Some modern physicists also believe this but people are stuck with incorrect ideas.

The expanding universe is another fallacy which I will address in the weeks to come.

 

There's nothing in the real world to support what you're saying. If there is, you need to present it.

 

 

JG: I will present many new things herein. I have sent 100 copies of my theory to physics professors all over the world. It is a difficult thing to do because the establishment tends to maintain itself. I am an independent theoretical thinker. Just a BSEE (Summa Cum Laude) Engineer who has worked on this project since 1981. Now at 70 years, I have finished my study.

[swansont]

JG: I will present many new things herein. I have sent 100 copies of my theory to physics professors all over the world. It is a difficult thing to do because the establishment tends to maintain itself. I am an independent theoretical thinker. Just a BSEE (Summa Cum Laude) Engineer who has worked on this project since 1981. Now at 70 years, I have finished my study.

 

It's fascinating that so many people (independent thinkers all) believe that their new ideas are rejected because of some orthodoxy in science, which belies the many new discoveries reported on almost a daily basis.

 

You need a self-consistent framework that is also in agreement with nature. It needs to be falsifiable. Absent that, all you will have done is mildly annoyed 100 physics professors. Since your proposal is seen to be incorrect with merely a cursory inspection, those 100 copies are destined for the dustbin (or, one hopes, the recycle bin, avoiding the needless sacrifice of an unknown number of trees.)

[Bignose]

JG: I will present many new things herein. I have sent 100 copies of my theory to physics professors all over the world. It is a difficult thing to do because the establishment tends to maintain itself. I am an independent theoretical thinker.

 

I just want to write something somewhat similar to what swansont wrote here. I've written it before, and I'll probably write it again, but this notion of "establishment" or "orthodoxy" in the sciences is frankly ridiculous.

 

All the "establishment" needs is evidence that backs up a theory. That's it. Period. If there is evidence that a new theory is better than the old one, guess what happens... the new theory becomes the "establishment". Sure, a few individuals who have spent their entire careers working on one idea that is now proven incorrect may be bitter or cling to their old ideas, but that is human nature. The community as a whole is constantly looking for new ideas and new theories! That's pretty much the whole reason they became scientists in the first place! But, they are not going to entertain every single thought or notion or passing whim of any person. That person with the new notion has to bring evidence to the table that what they say could be true. And, when you are trying to overturn some of the basics, you better bring a lot of evidence.

 

So, that's where we are with this thread, jerry. You are proposing to overthrow a lot of the basics, so there better be just mountains or mountains of evidence. Let's see it. Without those mountains and mountains of evidence, you have a story, and nothing more. And, unless your copies of your theory also had mountains and mountains evidence to go with it, there is no reason anyone in the scientific community had any reason at all to bother reading it.

 

If I told you I had the world's biggest gold nugget in my bathroom, would you just believe me? If I told you that my pet cat can fly and sing the National Anthem of Zimbabwe in a choir with Bigfoot and a leprechaun, would you just believe me? I'd hope not. You'd probably require me to provide some evidence.

 

In exactly the same way, in order for the members of the forum to believe you, in order for members of the scientific community to believe you (and some of us forum members are part of the scientific community, too), you have to provide evidence. And, I'm sorry if I am repeating myself, but it is going to take mountains and mountains and mountains of evidence to start convincing us.

[jerrygg38]

It's fascinating that so many people (independent thinkers all) believe that their new ideas are rejected because of some orthodoxy in science, which belies the many new discoveries reported on almost a daily basis.

 

You need a self-consistent framework that is also in agreement with nature. It needs to be falsifiable. Absent that, all you will have done is mildly annoyed 100 physics professors. Since your proposal is seen to be incorrect with merely a cursory inspection, those 100 copies are destined for the dustbin (or, one hopes, the recycle bin, avoiding the needless sacrifice of an unknown number of trees.)

 

JG: No some professors say they will review it. No only tree problems but it cost me $1000 to send out the copies. Some professors stated that they did not understand what I was saying. One was angry I bothered him. Usually I get better results from the European professors as my Doppler Space Time was well regarded. In general I may have to wait 6 months for some responses.

 

I just want to write something somewhat similar to what swansont wrote here. I've written it before, and I'll probably write it again, but this notion of "establishment" or "orthodoxy" in the sciences is frankly ridiculous.

 

All the "establishment" needs is evidence that backs up a theory.

 

JG: I am a theory producer not an evidence producer. The dot-wave is the smallest energy level in the universe. By itself it cannot be measured or detected. There can be no evidence of the existence of the dot-wave. It is beyond normal human comprehension. My mind sees it. I explain what I see.

 

Some people will come to understand what I see. They will come to understand the truth of it. Most will not of course. Most minds are quite limited to what they have been taught or can measure. My mind does not suffer such limitations.

Edited October 24, 2008 by swansont
multiple post merged; swansont: fix quote tag

[mooeypoo]

JG: No some professors say they will review it. No only tree problems but it cost me $1000 to send out the copies. Some professors stated that they did not understand what I was saying. One was angry I bothered him. Usually I get better results from the European professors as my Doppler Space Time was well regarded. In general I may have to wait 6 months for some responses.

 

Irrelevant, you still supplied no proof.

 

JG: No some professors say they will review it. No only tree problems but it cost me $1000 to send out the copies. Some professors stated that they did not understand what I was saying. One was angry I bothered him. Usually I get better results from the European professors as my Doppler Space Time was well regarded. In general I may have to wait 6 months for some responses.

 

I just want to write something somewhat similar to what swansont wrote here. I've written it before, and I'll probably write it again, but this notion of "establishment" or "orthodoxy" in the sciences is frankly ridiculous.

 

All the "establishment" needs is evidence that backs up a theory.

 

JG: I am a theory producer not an evidence producer. The dot-wave is the smallest energy level in the universe. By itself it cannot be measured or detected. There can be no evidence of the existence of the dot-wave. It is beyond normal human comprehension. My mind sees it. I explain what I see.

 

Some people will come to understand what I see. They will come to understand the truth of it. Most will not of course. Most minds are quite limited to what they have been taught or can measure. My mind does not suffer such limitations.

 

A theory with no proof is indistinguishable from crackpot mythology.

 

You don't need to prove your theory 100% yet. How 'bout giving us *something* that we can see you're basing your hypothesis on *anything* to do with reality?

Edited October 24, 2008 by mooeypoo
multiple post merged

[Bignose]

JG: I am a theory producer not an evidence producer. The dot-wave is the smallest energy level in the universe. By itself it cannot be measured or detected. There can be no evidence of the existence of the dot-wave. It is beyond normal human comprehension. My mind sees it. I explain what I see.

 

Some people will come to understand what I see. They will come to understand the truth of it. Most will not of course. Most minds are quite limited to what they have been taught or can measure. My mind does not suffer such limitations.

 

OK, well, then, you are just plain wrong. The dot wave is not the smallest energy level in the Universe. Because, dot waves are actually made up of something I call banana slinkies (which I will abbreviates as BS). There are [math]5.67\cdot10^8 \pi^5 [/math] BS per dot wave. There is more than one kind of BS, what I like to call ripe BS and rotten BS. I'm not sure which kind of BS makes up the dot wave, yet, or maybe it is a combination of both ripe and rotten BS.

 

Fortunately, you showed me that I don't need no silly things like evidence or proof of this idea. Neverthemind that there is no way to detect or prove the existence of my banana slinkies, they exist.

 

And just to run the gamut here, my theory is better than Einstein's, Feynmann's and Hawkins' all combined -- you all will see, they laughed at Columbus and Galileo, too.

 

So, jerry, are you prepared to accept that your ideas are wrong -- the dot wave is NOT the smallest unit of energy, it is in fact the banana slinky? I await your response so I can begin to teach you in the ways of the BS.

 

[/end silliness]

 

Do you see how ridiculous is sounds to say something like "There can be no evidence of the existence of the dot-wave." ?!? We might as well say that angels push objects together and that is the source of gravity or say that the wishing of unicorns is what makes our computers work.

 

The other alternative is that if you are going to stick your no evidence position, then this thread will probably be closed because then there is nothing to discuss.

[swansont]

JG: I am a theory producer not an evidence producer.

 

Discussion boards have a word for people who do that: troll

 

Don't be a troll.

 

The dot-wave is the smallest energy level in the universe. By itself it cannot be measured or detected. There can be no evidence of the existence of the dot-wave. It is beyond normal human comprehension. My mind sees it. I explain what I see.

 

Then it's not science.

 

Some people will come to understand what I see. They will come to understand the truth of it. Most will not of course. Most minds are quite limited to what they have been taught or can measure. My mind does not suffer such limitations.

 

Be advised that on this board discussion of alternative approaches to science must still be done within the framework of science. You need to address questions and present evidence for claims.

[jerrygg38]

Discussion boards have a word for people who do that: troll

 

Don't be a troll.

 

JG: The early scientists of mankind proposed various propositions and then proceeded to explain things from them. Since I correct the errors of the past my solutions stand alone. All my dot-wave equations interlock with one another. Thus I form a complete set for the basic understanding of matter.

 

 

 

Then it's not science.

 

JG: The science you like is proof by experiments. However often the experiments produce things which do not exist in nature. So the science merely proves nothing at all.

 

 

 

Be advised that on this board discussion of alternative approaches to science must still be done within the framework of science. You need to address questions and present evidence for claims.

 

 

JG: I cannot produce evidence of the dot-wave since it cannot be measured as itself. However if you measure the electric field, you are really measuring dots. The magnetic field you see with iron filings are dots in motion.

Fancy equations can be made but the basic structure of the universe is quite simple. People who cannot appreciate the simplicity of nature will not appreciate my dot-wave unified field theory.

However those countries who take my work seriously will advance ahead of those who do not have the capacity to recognize the simplicity and genius of my work.

 

Irrelevant, you still supplied no proof.

 

 

 

A theory with no proof is indistinguishable from crackpot mythology.

 

You don't need to prove your theory 100% yet. How 'bout giving us *something* that we can see you're basing your hypothesis on *anything* to do with reality?

 

JG: Which hypothesis are you interested in? The calculation of the dot charge and bipolar dot mass? The reasoning behind my conversion of mass to charge table? The Einsteinian mass/energy of the electron as it merges into the proton to form the neutron?

I have posted some elements of these and will post more.

[mooeypoo]

JG: I cannot produce evidence of the dot-wave since it cannot be measured as itself. However if you measure the electric field, you are really measuring dots. The magnetic field you see with iron filings are dots in motion.

Fancy equations can be made but the basic structure of the universe is quite simple. People who cannot appreciate the simplicity of nature will not appreciate my dot-wave unified field theory.

However those countries who take my work seriously will advance ahead of those who do not have the capacity to recognize the simplicity and genius of my work.

 

My Random Claim: A pink invisible elephant is hovering above my head, it is responsible for all the good coincidences that happen wherever I go.

 

How would you differentiate your claim from my claim, if both cannot be detected? How would you know which one's ACTUALLY physical (hence, real), and which is made-up?

 

And if you CAN'T notice it, can't detect it, cant see or detect its *influence* on anything, then.. why is it even relevant in a discussion about reality and physics?

[Bignose]

I cannot produce evidence of the dot-wave since it cannot be measured as itself.

 

Now taking all bets. How much longer until this thread gets closed? I'm giving 3 to 1 odds that about one more day ought to do it...

 

I mean, jerry himself says that there is no evidence, so there isn't much point in discussing it is there?

[Severian]

Actually, despite all the nay sayers in this thread, the premise in the OP is probably correct, in some form or another.

 

First of all, most of the mass of you or I comes about from the interactions of the strong force. Even if all the fundamental particles were massless, we would still have mass because the energy binding the quarks together in the proton gives the proton an effective mass.

 

So in some sense at least, mass comes about through interactions and therefore charge (though in this case color charge, not electric charge - the electromagnetic interaction also contributes , but its effect is tiny).

 

Even at a fundamental level, many scientists believe that particle masses arise from the same idea - from an interaction. This could be a new force like the strong force which we just haven't seen yet (this theory is called technicolor).

 

But even if the vanilla Higgs mechanism is true (the mechanism most physicists think will be true) then we also have mass from interactions. In this theory the mass is directly generated by a coupling to the Higgs boson - the Yukawa interaction - and the particle's mass is directly proportional to the coupling, or in other words the particle's Yukawa "charge".

 

The only sense in which the Yukawa interaction is not a charge is that it is not linked to a symmetry.

[mooeypoo]

Actually, despite all the nay sayers in this thread, the premise in the OP is probably correct, in some form or another.

 

Perhaps. We require proof, though, is that too much to ask? Explanation? substantiation? saying "Einstein believed" with no reference as to where and what, specifically since the broad subject is not quite what Einstein formulated, is not too much to ask.

 

I believe our major 'nay say' in this thread was trying to show that with the *given* explanation (non-existing or quite lacking), we really can't accept this theory at all. We posed counter-claims to the given claims, with no adequate response.. I don't think we're able to accept a theory with no proof or no attempt to explain inconsistencies. Hence our 'nay say'

 

First of all, most of the mass of you or I comes about from the interactions of the strong force. Even if all the fundamental particles were massless, we would still have mass because the energy binding the quarks together in the proton gives the proton an effective mass.

 

So in some sense at least, mass comes about through interactions and therefore charge (though in this case color charge, not electric charge - the electromagnetic interaction also contributes , but its effect is tiny).

That's a good point, but look at the OP. He's not stating a *CORRELATION* between mass and charge, he's stating they're equal, or "the same". That's simply not true.

 

Also, we're talking about two different 'depths', here, and they're absolutely not the same. For that matter, I can state that (like traveler said) there's no force at all operating on me when I sit still on the ground, because F=ma, and since there's no acceleration, there's no force. But that's *ONLY* true if I look at myself from the "Ftotal" view, ignoring the fact that forces DO apply on my body(they just happen to be equal to one another when i'm in equilibrium).

 

Same here. If you go very very very small, then I guess you can claim everything has some sort of charge, because everything has an electron (or.. mostly everything). And the interaction of the strong force vs. the electromagnetic force are still studied in small particles.

 

But from the above, concluding that all mass has charge - to a level of equating the two completely - is completely baseless. It's ignoring *everything else* that goes on in and out and near that charge, all other forces that make mass what it is.

 

Again to my question -- Neutral conductors exist. That's a fact. Neutral conductors have no charge. That's also a fact. If you take what was said in the OP, Neutral conductors shouldn't exist.

 

That's a problem.

 

Even at a fundamental level, many scientists believe that particle masses arise from the same idea - from an interaction. This could be a new force like the strong force which we just haven't seen yet (this theory is called technicolor).

BTW, can you give reference for this? It sounds interesting and I couldn't find much online other than some photograph info about this.. I might've looked for it wrong, not sure, but if you know of any studies or articles, I'd like to read about this. Sounds interesting.

 

But even if the vanilla Higgs mechanism is true (the mechanism most physicists think will be true) then we also have mass from interactions. In this theory the mass is directly generated by a coupling to the Higgs boson - the Yukawa interaction - and the particle's mass is directly proportional to the coupling, or in other words the particle's Yukawa "charge".

 

The only sense in which the Yukawa interaction is not a charge is that it is not linked to a symmetry.

 

But again, Severian, that's very interesting, but it's not quite what the OP is saying. Not at all. The Higgs Boson, if found to be true, is *not* negating all other fundamental forces, and it's not stating that mass *IS* charge (which it isn't, even if all mass *has* charge, which it doesn't).

 

what you're syaing is very interesting, and I would actually like to read more about it, but I think that it's a completely different point, and it's far from being a completely different theory of existence, even if the higgs-boson is found.

 

~moo

 

 

p.s - by the time you answer it'll change, of course, but I just thought I'd say congrats, I just noticed this was your 2,666 post . muahaha

[D H]

Actually, despite all the nay sayers in this thread, the premise in the OP is probably correct, in some form or another.

I think you are giving the OP far too much credit here. He explicitly says "For an electrical universe, everything could be described in electrical terms." In short, he is trying to revive the debunked electrical universe hypothesis.

 

First of all, most of the mass of you or I comes about from the interactions of the strong force. Even if all the fundamental particles were massless, we would still have mass because the energy binding the quarks together in the proton gives the proton an effective mass.

That mass, however, arises the strong force, not electromagnetism. The OP makes no mention of the strong force, or the weak force, or the Higgs mechanism.

 

If you read some of the OPs other posts you will see he is very explicit in stating that mass is charge, and charge only. He has yet to explain why leptons (or quarks) of two generations with the same charge and spin have different masses or why leptons are much less massive than baryons.

[Severian]

BTW, can you give reference for this? It sounds interesting and I couldn't find much online other than some photograph info about this.. I might've looked for it wrong, not sure, but if you know of any studies or articles, I'd like to read about this. Sounds interesting.

 

It has a wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technicolor_(physics)

Edited October 25, 2008 by Sayonara³
URL fixed

[swansont]

JG: I cannot produce evidence of the dot-wave since it cannot be measured as itself. However if you measure the electric field, you are really measuring dots. The magnetic field you see with iron filings are dots in motion.

 

IOW there is nothing to distinguish this from saying, "It's magic," or from the currently accepted physics.

 

How would one, in principle, falsify the dot-wave hypothesis?

 

Fancy equations can be made but the basic structure of the universe is quite simple. People who cannot appreciate the simplicity of nature will not appreciate my dot-wave unified field theory.

However those countries who take my work seriously will advance ahead of those who do not have the capacity to recognize the simplicity and genius of my work.

 

Calling people idiots if they don't just accept what you are shoveling probably isn't the best course of action.

[mooeypoo]

It has a wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technicolor_(physics)

 

Of course it does...

 

sorry, my bad, I was ... meh, I don't know what I was doing, but apparently i wasn't searching right.

thanks

[jerrygg38]

I think you are giving the OP far too much credit here. He explicitly says "For an electrical universe, everything could be described in electrical terms." In short, he is trying to revive the debunked electrical universe hypothesis.

 

JG: The universe can be described in terms of coulombs/seconds/meters or kilograms/seconds/meters or Radians/seconds/meters. All I state is that the units of coulombs are the same as the units of kilograms. This does not mean that mass has the same characteristics as electrical charge. They are quite different. A proton has a characteristic of charge which could be expressed as coulombs and a characteristic of mass which could be expressed in units of coulombs or kilograms. Coulombs and kilograms have the same units. Electrical energy and mechanical energy have the same units.

Why break the units apart. It permits us to look at the gravitational constant in electrical terms.

G= K (Mp + Me) Me / 8QQ

 

Then we can see that the gravitational field is an electrical field. We could also look at the electrical field as a mechanical field. This method permits us to understand the duality of mass and charge.

 

 

That mass, however, arises the strong force, not electromagnetism. The OP makes no mention of the strong force, or the weak force, or the Higgs mechanism.

 

JG: Later I will present all the forces. The important thing that electrical enegy changes into mechanical energy via the Heisenberg interaction.

 

If you read some of the OPs other posts you will see he is very explicit in stating that mass is charge, and charge only. He has yet to explain why leptons (or quarks) of two generations with the same charge and spin have different masses or why leptons are much less massive than baryons.[/QU

[mooeypoo]

I think you are giving the OP far too much credit here. He explicitly says "For an electrical universe, everything could be described in electrical terms." In short, he is trying to revive the debunked electrical universe hypothesis.

 

JG: The universe can be described in terms of coulombs/seconds/meters or kilograms/seconds/meters or Radians/seconds/meters.

No, it cannot, and until you prove otherwise, there really isn't much to discuss here.

[jerrygg38]

"That mass, however, arises the strong force, not electromagnetism. The OP makes no mention of the strong force, or the weak force, or the Higgs mechanism"

 

What does your abbreviation OP mean?

[Klaynos]

OP = original post/poster

[john5746]

OP = original post/poster

 

Really? All this time, I thought it meant Overbearing Prick. Suddenly, starting a new thread has become much less stressful! Cool!

[jerrygg38]

"If you read some of the OPs other posts you will see he is very explicit in stating that mass is charge, and charge only. He has yet to explain why leptons (or quarks) of two generations with the same charge and spin have different masses or why leptons are much less massive than baryons.[/QU"

 

JG: I do not know if you are referring to me. Mass and charge have the same units but not the same properties. Charge produces mass and mass produces charge. thus they are sisters of each other.

In general a mass exhibits mechanical properties. Charge exhibits electrical properties. They are interchangeable. Thus electrical energy can produce mechanical energy and mechanical energy can produce electrical energy.

 

Why are leptons less massive than baryons.

 

The dot wave theory is a reformulation of Doppler Space Time and only completed a month ago. I have only worked out a few particles

 

The U-meson shower produces

Product = (-pi) + (-pi) + (+pi) + (+u)

The masses are

 

M(+pi) = 273.23 Me

M (-pi) = 273.23

M (+u) = 206.84

 

Each of these particles exits the neutron at 0.9186C which is standard for all the high energy subparticles as they emerge from the neutron/ proton radius. The Einsteinian mass/energy of the high energy pi and u mesons are

 

M = 206.84 x 2.530338 = 523.375 Me

Mass of 3 high speed U-mesons = 1570.13 Me

When we add a pi to it we get

M = 1570.13 + 273.23 = 1843.36 Me

 

 

When we look at the K-mesons we find:

 

M(u) = 523.375 Me

M (pi) = 692.19

 

The mass of the proton is 1836.149Me

The mass difference between a proton and a K meson is

delta mass = 869.149Me

 

Four delta masses equals 3476.596Me

Two pi mesons at 0.9186C has a mass energy of

2 high speed pi mesons = 1384.38Me

4 high speed U-mesons = 2093.5Me

 

Total product = 3477.88 MEV

 

Therefore when 4 protons are hit or a pair of protons and neutrons, they produce 4 k-mesons and 6 pi-mesons.

 

The 2182 Me Lambda decay into a proton and a pi-particle

 

2 Lambda = 4364Me

Mp + Mn = 1836 Me + 1839 Me = 3675 Me

 

The particle difference is 689Me

 

the mass of the resulting particle is

689Me/ 2.5043 = 273.52 Me

 

Thus the product of Lambdas decay produced the pi particle.

 

All the particles are readily understood as long as the Einsteinian energy level is taken into consideration. A computer analysis will produce better results since the Author only has a pocket calculator. This is better than the slide rule the author used 27 years ago to start the theory.