I hadn't read it before today. But then I haven't read quite a lot of seminal papers. But I am actually fairly well educated in physics.
I'm perfectly capable of thinking for myself thanks. I've even done it in relation to physics.
You said: "Rest mass is "rest energy", it's "how much energy-momentum is there in front of you not travelling with respect to you". This is gibberish. Its incoherent. The words are English but the sentence makes no sense.
Are you worried about your book being favorably reviewed by an Electric Universe crank?
You are wrong, e.g.
That is realy vague - reduces by how much?
Three equivalent definitions of α in terms of other fundamental physical constants are:
where:
- e is the elementary charge;
- ħ = h/2π is the reduced Planck constant;
- c is the speed of light in vacuum;
- ε0 is the electric constant or permittivity of free space;
- or µ0 is the magnetic constant or permeability of free space;
- or ke is the Coulomb constant.
(bold added)
Yeah, but ...
John Duffield said:
John Duffield said:
John Duffield said:
If you haven't read this before today, then you are not fairly well educated in physics.
So do it now in relation to the symmetry between momentum and inertia.
Once I have brought you up to a level where you are fairly well educated in physics, it will.
Not at all.
That's rather an ad-hominem thing to say, RC. Try to stick with the physics instead of slagging people off if they challenge your convictions.
It isn't my theory, all I did was produce a synthesis of various things I've read, including Einstein material and material by other authors. That said, I sent it to a number of journals and thay all rejected me.
I'm not one for conspiracy theories. I'd say it was more a case of this guy has no credentials so forget it. But make no mistake, peer review is abused to protect vested interest. I've spoken to people who do have credentials, who find that they struggle to get robust evidential papers into high-impact journals.
It's a mildly peculiar definition of 'fairly well educated in physics' to require that someone's read certain groundbreaking papers rather than just understood what they say and their wider impact via other sources.
I didn't run into problems there, ct. I successfully knocked the "waterfall" woo on the head, and more recently knocked on the head the "geodesic dome" garbage wherein a gravitational field consists of flat plates of non-zero extent. I dare say I've kicked KS coordinates into the long grass too, but that one's less emphatic.
True.
Yes, but there's 17 adjustable parameters, it isn't like GR where there aren't any. And it would be wrong to say that all aspects of the Standard Model are "very good". The Higgs sector is described as ad hoc by Gian Giudice who campares it unfavourably with the symmetry aspects. Plus it doesn't cover gravity, there's other gaps that you already know about, and further gaps that you don't. For example it doesn't actually tell you how pair production converts a photon into an electron and a positron. That's because the standard model is a work in progress, or should be, but progress appears to have ground to a halt in recent decades as physics withers on the vine amidst a rising tide of idiocracy. Hence here I am doing my bit.
How many times do I have to say it: it isn't my model. The mathematical modelling has been done by people whose papers I've read, but they struggle to get into journals and then struggle to get any media publicity.
They don't. That's your misreading and misunderstanding.
Not so. Think of photons as waves propagating linearly. They can ride over one another. They can overlap. They're bosons. Now think of the same kind of wave trapped in a closed path because it's moving through itself. Look up displacement current for this. You've now got angular momentum, spin, rotation, standing-wave orbitals. It's like a vortex. And two vortexes cannot overlap just as two whirlpools cannot overlap. They're fermions.
I'm sorry edd, but anybody who has been "fairly well educated in physics" who has not read Einstein's E=mc² paper has been badly educated in physics. You canot understand what a paper says from some other source that totally omits the crucial point of that paper: when the system loses kinetic energy that system loses mass.
I think that's part of the problem actually. I'm forever saying Einstein said this or Einstein said that and referring to the paper concerned, but nobody's ever seen it before. And sometimes what they've been taught on the course is the exact opposite to what Einstein said. Doubtless they've been served up the fabulous Higgs boson smothered in cosmic treacle, but nobody teaches them that the Higgs mechanism accounts for a mere 1% to the mass of matter. And nobody teaches them why E=mc² or that E=hf flipflops to E=mc² in pair production and annihilation. Sometimes it feels like they're being taught cargo-cult physics instead of physics. And then like groupies they will not do their own reasearch, and they will not think for themselves.
Well, I've done alright myself, despite my bad education.
You have no idea which sources I have read or who I've been taught by. You're guessing.
Errm, it doesn't. In pair production the total energy of the photon is divided between the masses of the electron and positron and their kinetic energies. One photon to two leptons.
Funny, cos I've done my own research.
Yes they do. Two high energy photons can interact to create an electron and a positron via pair production. No other particles are present. The virtual particles which are said to mediate the process are virtual. Their underlying reality is the evanescent wave which is the potential gradient.
OK.
Yes. But you're missing the whole point of Einstein's E=mc² paper. The radiating body loses kinetic energy to lose its mass. That kinetic energy departs linearly at c. Before it did so it was still kinetic energy. It was still moving at c. But it wasn't exiting the body, because it was in a closed path. And all of the body consists of kinetic energy. You cannot move a body consisting of kinetic energy moving at c at the speed at which that kinetic energy moves.
Yes. If a particle is travelling slower than c you can catch it up and it looks like the particle is at rest. It's similar to flying above an oceanic swell wave in a helicopter. If the sea is otherwise calm and the sky is clear, it's like hovering over a bump in the ocean.
Yes. But again you're missing the point of Einstein's E=mc² paper and you still aren't understanding mass. When rest mass is non-zero it only means that the kinetic energy moving at c is confined in some closed path, and so is at rest in aggregate with respect to the system or body or particle. When rest mass is zero it only means that the kinetic energy is moving linearly at c.
No, because you can't catch it up because you're a body where the kinetic energy is confined in a closed path at c and you can't have it going round and round at c and moving linearly at c. Because light can't go faster than light.
It's more reasonable to understand E=mc² and rest mass along with effective mass, and note that we have never seen a neutrino at rest, and then conclude that in at least two of the three known flavours of neutrino the kinetic energy takes a non-linear path. The more non-linear or "curly" that path is, the greater the effective mass. Make it so non-linear that the path is closed, and then the effective mass is the rest mass.
I did. I said this:
In standard pair production where the photon interacts with a nucleus, the photon gets chopped in half, and conservation of momentum means some of the energy goes to the nucleus. Not much, because it's much more massive than the electron and positron, but some.
Wikipedia said: