unifying gravity and electromagnetism

[drgsrinivas]

We are familiar with the idea that mass and energy are equivalent from the famous equation E= mc².

If mass and energy are one and the same, why do we need two different forces- gravitational and electromagnetic?

As photons ‘aggregate’ into matter, the resultant decrease in the number of ‘free photons’ or the energy level of the system (or the decrease in entropy) is probably what we appreciate as the gravitational attraction.

In other words an increase in entropy (energy level or disorder) is what causes the electromagnetic force and a decrease in the same (or creation of matter) is what results in the gravity.

A decrease in entropy may create ‘antiphotons’ (?graviton) or ‘dark energy’ which could then mediate gravity.

or Gravity could be an innate property of matter in the universe in the sense that it may not require a mediator or carrier. Probably matter ‘naturally’ collapses into singularity in the absence of Energy. So graviton, the presumed carrier particle for gravity, may not be needed.

So mass and energy are responsible for the same force but have opposite direction.

www.homeoscience.com

 

[Mashuna]

That's a hilarious website you've linked to there. Have you ever managed to persuade anyone to take it seriously?

 

[The Don]

We are familiar with the idea that mass and energy are equivalent from the famous equation E= mc².

Yes....

If mass and energy are one and the same, why do we need two different forces- gravitational and electromagnetic?

People have been trying to unify gravitation with the other forces and so far have not been able to do so. The correct mathematics have not yet been developed.

IAs photons ‘aggregate’ into matter, the resultant decrease in the number of ‘free photons’ or the energy level of the system (or the decrease in entropy) is probably what we appreciate as the gravitational attraction.

They don't but if you think that they do, show us the maths

In other words an increase in entropy (energy level or disorder) is what causes the electromagnetic force and a decrease in the same (or creation of matter) is what results in the gravity.

It doesn't but if you think it does, show us the maths

A decrease in entropy may create ‘antiphotons’ (?graviton) or ‘dark energy’ which could then mediate gravity.

Now you're just making stuff up but if you're not, show us the maths

or Gravity could be an innate property of matter in the universe in the sense that it may not require a mediator or carrier. Probably matter ‘naturally’ collapses into singularity in the absence of Energy. So graviton, the presumed carrier particle for gravity, may not be needed.

It doesn't but if you think it does, show us the maths

So mass and energy are responsible for the same force but have opposite direction.

www.homeoscience.com

They aren't, but as you clearly think they do, instead of indulging in some vague thought experiment, do the maths

 

[PixyMisa]

As photons ‘aggregate’ into matter, the resultant decrease in the number of ‘free photons’ or the energy level of the system (or the decrease in entropy) is probably what we appreciate as the gravitational attraction.

As The Don said, this is so bad it's not even wrong, but if you intend to continue, show us the equations.

Anything further you post without equations will be summarily mocked.

 

[Vorpal]

If mass and energy are one and the same, why do we need two different forces- gravitational and electromagnetic?

Because electric charge and mass are not the same.

If you have a gas of electric charges in a box, zipping about at some velocities, then the total electric charge in the box (as one could measure through Coulomb's law from outside the box) is just the sum of the individual charges.
But if you have a gas of gravitational charges in a box (i.e., massive particles), then the total gravitational charge in the box (as one could measure through Newton's law) is not the sum of the individual masses, but that amount scaled by a Lorentz factor γ corresponding to the average velocity of the particles.

If electric charge also scaled like that, then it would be gravity. But it doesn't.

As photons ‘aggregate’ into matter, the resultant decrease in the number of ‘free photons’ or the energy level of the system (or the decrease in entropy) is probably what we appreciate as the gravitational attraction.

Whut?

A decrease in entropy may create ‘antiphotons’ (?graviton) or ‘dark energy’ which could then mediate gravity.

Antiphoton = photon.

or Gravity could be an innate property of matter in the universe in the sense that it may not require a mediator or carrier. Probably matter ‘naturally’ collapses into singularity in the absence of Energy. So graviton, the presumed carrier particle for gravity, may not be needed.

You can't have matter without energy. That's basic relativity.

 

[MRC_Hans]

We are familiar with the idea that mass and energy are equivalent from the famous equation E= mc².

If mass and energy are one and the same, why do we need two different forces- gravitational and electromagnetic?

As photons ‘aggregate’ into matter, the resultant decrease in the number of ‘free photons’ or the energy level of the system (or the decrease in entropy) is probably what we appreciate as the gravitational attraction.

In other words an increase in entropy (energy level or disorder) is what causes the electromagnetic force and a decrease in the same (or creation of matter) is what results in the gravity.

A decrease in entropy may create ‘antiphotons’ (?graviton) or ‘dark energy’ which could then mediate gravity.

or Gravity could be an innate property of matter in the universe in the sense that it may not require a mediator or carrier. Probably matter ‘naturally’ collapses into singularity in the absence of Energy. So graviton, the presumed carrier particle for gravity, may not be needed.

So mass and energy are responsible for the same force but have opposite direction.

www.homeoscience.com

Your post seems to ask some well thought through questions, so you deserve a well thought through reply.

.... .....

No.

Thank you for your post, think again, and then come back.

Hans

 

[Tubbythin]

That's a hilarious website you've linked to there.

Indeed. I particularly like the bit where the constancy of light is 'disproved' by taking a real experiment, proposing an alternative form of the experiment (which is completely impossible) and then claiming that because the results of the actual experiment did not turn out the same as that of the proposed experiment (which is completely impossible to do and has thus never been done), the interpretation of the actual experiment must be wrong.

 

[The Don]

From the link in the OP.....

Homeopathy and Science

....two things that are completely unalike

 

[dafydd]

We are familiar with the idea that mass and energy are equivalent from the famous equation E= mc².

If mass and energy are one and the same, why do we need two different forces- gravitational and electromagnetic?

As photons ‘aggregate’ into matter, the resultant decrease in the number of ‘free photons’ or the energy level of the system (or the decrease in entropy) is probably what we appreciate as the gravitational attraction.

In other words an increase in entropy (energy level or disorder) is what causes the electromagnetic force and a decrease in the same (or creation of matter) is what results in the gravity.

A decrease in entropy may create ‘antiphotons’ (?graviton) or ‘dark energy’ which could then mediate gravity.

or Gravity could be an innate property of matter in the universe in the sense that it may not require a mediator or carrier. Probably matter ‘naturally’ collapses into singularity in the absence of Energy. So graviton, the presumed carrier particle for gravity, may not be needed.

So mass and energy are responsible for the same force but have opposite direction.

www.homeoscience.com

Thank you for the link. I collect links to hogwash sites. That is a very funny example of the genre.

 

[drgsrinivas]

show us the maths

They aren't, but as you clearly think they do, instead of indulging in some vague thought experiment, do the maths

It was Logic which lead to the religion, science and maths. Religious beliefs turned extremistic and overthrew logic. Then came the Science from logic. Now it is the turn of the scientific extremists to reject logic.

I don’t need your **** maths to explain the double slit experiment or to disprove the constant speed of light that is based on the well ‘woven’ maths.

Apparently a mathematical model can be constructed for any **** idea, so why your mind is so obsessed with maths.

 

[MRC_Hans]

It was Logic which lead to the religion, science and maths. Religious beliefs turned extremistic and overthrew logic. Then came the Science from logic. Now it is the turn of the scientific extremists to reject logic.

I don’t need your **** maths to explain the double slit experiment or to disprove the constant speed of light that is based on the well ‘woven’ maths.

Apparently a mathematical model can be constructed for any **** idea, so why your mind is so obsessed with maths.

Temper, temper! If you get your knickers tied up all that easy, I suggest you refrain from posting loads of technobabble on a skeptic forum.

What exactly did you expect?

Hans

 

[Mashuna]

It was Logic which lead to the religion, science and maths. Religious beliefs turned extremistic and overthrew logic. Then came the Science from logic. Now it is the turn of the scientific extremists to reject logic.

I don’t need your **** maths to explain the double slit experiment or to disprove the constant speed of light that is based on the well ‘woven’ maths.

Apparently a mathematical model can be constructed for any **** idea, so why your mind is so obsessed with maths.

Well, you've shown you're unable to use logic, maybe you'd have better luck with maths.

 

[Tubbythin]

It was Logic which lead to the religion, science and maths. Religious beliefs turned extremistic and overthrew logic. Then came the Science from logic. Now it is the turn of the scientific extremists to reject logic.

I don’t need your **** maths to explain the double slit experiment or to disprove the constant speed of light that is based on the well ‘woven’ maths.

Go on then. Disprove the constancy of the speed of light.

Apparently a mathematical model can be constructed for any **** idea, so why your mind is so obsessed with maths.

Mathematics is really just a (large) set of logical rules. If a 'scientific' hypothesis doesn't stand up to mathematical scrutiny then, chances are, it isn't logical.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

It was Logic which lead to the religion, science and maths. Religious beliefs turned extremistic and overthrew logic. Then came the Science from logic. Now it is the turn of the scientific extremists to reject logic.

So it's your turn. Go for it.

I don’t need your **** maths to explain the double slit experiment or to disprove the constant speed of light that is based on the well ‘woven’ maths.

Bring it on. Let's see your explanations and disproofs.

Apparently a mathematical model can be constructed for any **** idea, so why your mind is so obsessed with maths.

One great advantage of using mathematics to describe **** ideas is that their **** aspects become more obvious.

You can, of course, achieve much the same result by railing against mathematics.

 

[bjornart]

As photons ‘aggregate’ into matter, the resultant decrease in the number of ‘free photons’ or the energy level of the system (or the decrease in entropy) is probably what we appreciate as the gravitational attraction.

There's no steady aggregation of photons into matter when I jump, so why do I fall back to earth?

And if you think there is, explain why, without resorting to "it has to be like that for my theory to be true, and my theory is true so that's the way it is."

 

[Dancing David]

It was Logic which lead to the religion, science and maths. Religious beliefs turned extremistic and overthrew logic. Then came the Science from logic. Now it is the turn of the scientific extremists to reject logic.

I don’t need your **** maths to explain the double slit experiment or to disprove the constant speed of light that is based on the well ‘woven’ maths.

Well then how did you disporove the constancy of c?

Apparently a mathematical model can be constructed for any **** idea, so why your mind is so obsessed with maths.

So when asked to demonstrate you claims, you get all huffy and engage in rhetorical spin, in your second post.

This does not bode well for your length of time on the JREF, chill out, read some threads, learn to explain yourself.

 

[The Don]

It was Logic which lead to the religion, science and maths. Religious beliefs turned extremistic and overthrew logic. Then came the Science from logic. Now it is the turn of the scientific extremists to reject logic..

Do you have any evidence for this assertion ?

As far as I can determine, the earliest evidence for the study of logic comes from around 3000 years ago.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_logic

Religion on the other hand has been around for a lot, lot longer

I don’t need your **** maths to explain the double slit experiment or to disprove the constant speed of light that is based on the well ‘woven’ maths..

There is ample experimental evidence for the absolute speed of light and its application to Special Relativity:

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

Do you have any opposing evidence (as opposed to faulty thought experiments) ?

How DO you explain the double slit experiment in a clear and concise way without using mathemetics ?

Apparently a mathematical model can be constructed for any **** idea, so why your mind is so obsessed with maths.

Absolutely, any mathematical model could be constructed. Mathematical models are then compared to experimental results and used to make predictions. Those that do so effectively are retained, those that do not are discarded.

In any case they provide a clear and unambiguous description of that model as opposed to a collection of words which can be misunderstood.

 

[Dancing David]

Use this link to read, decrease click through

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ww.homeoscience.com/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Gotta love it but use Google cache!

"The string will have a heavy but tiny matter pole and a large antimatter pole that has no weight."

Hmm, antimatter has no mass?

"Also we can’t imagine that a substance is a mere conglomeration of material particles. We know that substances contain molecules/ atoms which are again made up of subatomic particles. What we don’t easily appreciate or realize is the Energy that fills the space between these particles. Not only the Energy, but there could well be many undetectable/ undiscovered /more fundamental particles within these interstices. These particles could be seen as intermediate energy states or ‘intermediate particles’ in the process of energy to matter transformation. "

Ay, here there be dragons...

 

[Tubbythin]

I don’t need your **** maths to explain the double slit experiment or to disprove the constant speed of light that is based on the well ‘woven’ maths.

Oh, just noticed from your page... if you'd done the slightest bit of research in to the double-slit experiment you would have found that the interference pattern still appears when electrons are fired one at a time. The idea that it is caused by interference between the electrons is simply false.

 

[drgsrinivas]

Double slit situation

An electron is apparently surrounded by a cloud of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence. Virtual particles are particle/ antiparticle pairs (electrons/ positrons) that get created from the ‘vacuum’ and disappear by annihilating each other.

If this picture is true, the created particle/ antiparticle pairs may not adhere to and behave with sanctity and it is possible that the original electron may get annihilated by one of the virtual positrons created ‘next’ to it. So the position of the ‘real electron’ keeps changing in the cloud and we may feel that its exact position is unpredictable. This unpredictability is more to do with our ignorance and not to be considered as a fundamental character of the particle.

So this electron cloud when shot, is likely to travel through both the slits simultaneously and how much of the cloud goes through each slit depends on the size of the cloud (likely to be infinite), the distance between the slits and the direction it is shot.

When many electrons are shot at once, all will travel in the same way as above but the particle clouds/ virtual particles of different electrons can interact with their neighbors’ and hence can influence the position of the neighboring ‘real electrons’. This influence of particle clouds on one another can result in the interference pattern observed in the two slit experiment.

www.homeoscience.com