Hi Pax,

BEGIN RANT...

Our discussions are a sort of *fluffy* admixture
of Newtonian Physics, SR, GR, QT, QM, EM, cosmology
and AE quotations, colored with inexact sematics,
that are pseudo-religious.
On top of that (as Mr. Draper kindly pointed out,
in another thread) are injections of "what if this
impossible thingy applied to the universe, what
would happen then" type scenarios.

Bare in mind that we so-called physicists are just
trying to make sense of the universe by examining
careful measurements, and we try to limit our
preconceived notions to a minimum, otherwise we run
the risk of physics becoming religious, and that
would fracture the hard won global scientific
community by cultural differences, and that, I'm
sure you understand would be extremely detrimental
to the common understanding mankind should work
toward, as that understanding tends to promote the
peace among nations, and improve living standards
within those nations that evolve to more scientific
views, as the European Common Union has well
demonstrated in the 20th century, together with
Russia, even though experiencing the greatest
slaughter and blood bath in a 6 year period we call
WW2.

END RANT

May I suggest we pick and clearly define a question,
and apply what we know or what we can learn to it?

Pardon the top-post, but below a line by line
response from me would be incompetent.
An exact response pushes my limits of understanding
of applied mathematics.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker


"Pax" wrote in message . com...
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
om...
"Pax" wrote in message
om...
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
om...
...
[Ken]
Pax, I must confess to you, I'm a hard core GRist and in my books
there is
no such thing as force.

[Pax]
Okay, not you've got my head spinning.

Force
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force

You can call it momentum, energy, tension, etc., but it all boils down
to "force". Electromagnetic, Strong, Weak... these all have "Force" as the
final part of their names.

[Ken]
All these are basically Newtonian concepts.

[Pax]
Newton didn't lose most of his credibility when Einstein came on the scene,
especially not with Einstein. The giants who came before are giants for a
reason.

[Ken]
General Relativity has modified the ideas of acceleration quite
substantially.

[Pax]
Modified, but not done away with.

[Ken]
For example GR postulates, that acceleration is *relative*. That means
one may always find a CS where acceleration of a particle is zero. Take for
example any object you would care to apply a force to, well an observer on
that object may claim there is no acceleration operating on him/her by
placing themselves as being at rest, - in the center of the universe - so to
speak.

So does force really exist?

[Pax]
Sure force exists. The observer on that object does feel the effects of
the applied force, even though he might not recognize them as the results of
an external force being applied. Accelerative force translates into what is
perceived as gravitational force.

Wouldn't it be odd if all gravity really was is a byproduct of motion?
Wonder what would happen if every celestial object just stopped moving? No
more outward, no more around. Of course, it's a no-way what-if, since all
motion is tied to all other motion, but it's fun to follow such things down.


If universal expansion, orbiting, and rotation cease...?

Acceleration-generated gravitation:
1) The cessation of our galaxy's outward motion would lessen gravity.
2) The cessation of our galaxy's rotation would further lessen gravity.
3) The cessation of Earth's orbit around the sun would further lessen
gravity.

Mass-created gravitation:
1) Would the cessation of the sun's rotation lessen its gravitation?
It should.
2) Would the cessation of the Earth's rotation lessen its gravitation?
It should.
3) How strong would a purely non-motion-generated form of gravity be?
Extremely weak, but still there as long as particle motion continued?
4) If all particle motion ceased, would all gravitation vanish?
Depends on what generates the force.
5) If all particle motion ceased, would all the forces responsible for mass
coming together cease?
If motion is the key factor, yes.

Of course, I know that if all motion ceased time would cease and space would
vanish, since time, space, and motion are all interconnected and time is
motion... but was just trying to divide down to basics with the above
thought experiment.

[Ken]
I posted a theory about geometric invariants called "unitivity",
and derived a force accounting for the strong nuclear force along the lines
of *supergravity*, there should be net references about *supergravity*.
Essentially, one derives a particle from a field by defining "action". For
example, Planck's "h" is in units of action, and when this is multiplied
by1/t,

E = h/t == h*frequency, when t = period.

Similarly, charge^2 are units of action and

E = q*Q/r (r= ct = t)

[Pax]
Please clarify the last equation, what are "q" and "Q"?

[Ken]
Electrostatic charge q and another spatial different charge Q.

[Pax]
Okay... still not following. Sorry. Writing it out as I understand it,
please correct it where needed:

Energy equals electrostatic charge(q) times spatial charge(Q) divided by
r, which r is equal to c times time(t) which is equal to time(t).

[Ken]
That's exactly right.


[Pax]
That's what I was afraid of. Okay, let me ask you this way: Is c equal to
the speed of light or is c equal to 1? If c=speed of light then ctt; if
c=1 then it looks as if you said t=t... that can't be right. Are you
representing the value of the speed of light (c) with 1? But why would you
when you could just say t=c? Just not be catching this. Should one of those
"t"s be "T"?

[Ken]
I'm sure you're familiar with a volt from everyday use. Well in math a
volt is,

Volts == Q/r
so the electrostatic energy of a charge "q" is,
Energy(q) = q*Volts eq.(1)
Since you like light so much, recall the "power" of your bulbs is in
"watts" stamped on the bulbs.

Do a bit more algebra, divide eq.(1) by time t,
E/t = (q/t)*Volts

Recognize these? ....
Current(amps) = q/t and
E/T = Power(watts) = Current*Volts .

I find it helpful to try to relate to familiar things.
...

[Pax]
Thanks, working on it. Appreciate your bearing with me. So, how does one
arrive at all these charges? One thing I haven't studied for so long I don't
remember it anymore is anything electrical. Give me a week and let me study
up so I can stop being a total dip in that area, okay?

[Pax]
Still not explained for me, sorry. Are you saying the lack of a
description for g-waves is what led to your "exist in one FoR but not
another" statement?

[Ken]
Yes, (but my views are unorthodox, I do respect the views of
conventional GRist who think otherwise).

The GR equation above is true in all FoR's, hence electromagnetic
radiation was predicted, and this led Hertz to conduct radio experiments to
prove it using basic sparks and antennae. Sure enough he proved it and an
entire new way of transmitting porn was born.

[Pax]
grin

[Ken]
What, I have yet to learn is an equivalent way to express g-radiation,
that is invariant. Perhaps brighter theoreticians have solved that problem,
but I have not found, seen or learned it yet, therefore, on the basis of my
experience I am unable to under-write the effect.

[Pax]
See quote below, perhaps it will help.

[Ken]
Secondly, applying advanced nonsymmetrical metric unified
field theory to bear, the six remaining candidates within the metric able to
transfer that information via the spacetime field
(the asymmetric of g01...g12...g30),
are used to transfer electromagnetic effects.

[Pax]
More expounding requested. There is, as yet, no Unified Field
Theory... at least there's been no prize ceremony and accompanying parade.
)

[Ken]
Well Einstein proposed g_uv =-g_vu in his last entry to his book
"Idea's and Opinions" as a footnote on the last page, do you have that book?

[Pax]
Yes, I do, it's one of those I just bought. The last footnote in
the book states:

"The generalization can be characterized in the following way. In
accordance with its derivation from empty "Minkowski space," the pure
gravitational field of the functions g_ik has the property of symmetry given
by
g_ik = g_ki (g_12 = g_21, etc.).
The generalized field is of the same kind, but without this property
of symmetry. The derivation of the field law is completely analogous to that
of the special case of pure gravitation."

Is that the one you mean?

[Ken]
Yes, good of you to consider Einstein's last foot-note in his last
publication of his life. What he is recommending is serious consideration to
g_ik = - g_ki (asymmetrical) in certain circumstances.

[Pax]
Why are you adding the "-" in front of the second part of the equation?
In my limited understanding, it would seem
g_ik = g_ki
would not be the same as
g_ik = - g_ki

[Ken]
That's right.
In the 99% conventional GR used today g_ik = g_ki, it's unorthodox to
use g_ik = - g_ki, see the permutation on indices "i" and "j".

[Pax]
See them where?

[Ken]
I'm awfully glad you took the time to repeat the footnote ...like a
good twink I donated my copy to the local library.

[Pax]
Think this is the 2nd or 3rd time I've bought my books, flooding... but
never had a copy of Ideas and Opinions until now, and haven't yet read it.

[Ken]
I bought it in High School, it a good read when you're watching Gilligan's
Island reruns on TV.

[Pax]
That show drove me mad, would rather listen to the Weather Channel.

[Ken]
At least you won't think I'm a total crank to consider g_ik = - g_ki
when appropriate. I'll warn you right now, some think of me as unorthodox to
consider Einstein's last thought's as reasonable, and others are so
frustrated by the mathematical difficulty that they just "kill file me".

[Pax]
I don't think you're the least bit of a crank! I don't understand... why
would they kill file you?

[Ken]
I'm not cowarded by his statement, on the contrary I've done careful
study since HS and find it totally reasonable.

One last thing...Why would an Einstein, who is committed to finding
truth and honesty use his last words to mislead me?

I checked out the guy, and find he was completely honest when he made
that claim.

You've studied him, what axe was he grinding if any?

[Pax]
He didn't have any axes to grind in that arena that I can see, he was
completely consumed in his search for Truth, with a capital "T". He was
after the laws that describe "exhaustively physical reality," and he really
didn't care if the products of that pursuit angered others or went against
the accepted norms.

From the last part of Ideas and Opinions, it's starkly apparent he
considered spacetime to be a construct of gravitational fields that would,
in the absence of those fields, cease to exist. (I have to smile, since
that's what I said in my post you Zenned out on at the end.) He prefaced his
arguments that followed with an argument of Descartes': "space is identical
with extension, but extension is connected with bodies; thus there is no
space without bodies and hence no empty space." After that he states:

[Open quote]
On the basis of the general theory of relativity, on the other hand,
space as opposed to "what fills space," which is dependent on the
coordinates, has no separate existence. Thus a pure gravitational field
might have been described in terms of the g_ik (as functions of the
coordinates), by solution of the gravitational equations. If we imagine the
gravitational field, i.e., the functions g_ik, to be removed, there does not
remain a space of type (1) [[ref--ds^2=dx_1^2+dx_2^2+dx_3^2-dx_4^2]], but
absolutely *nothing*, and also no "topological space." For the functions
g_ik describe not only the field, but at the same time also the topological
and metrical structures of the manifold. A space of type (1), judged from
the standpoint of the general theory of relativity, is not a space without a
field, but a special case of the g_ik field, for which--for the coordinate
system used, which in itself has no objective significance--the functions
g_ik have values that do not depend on the coordinates. There is no such
thing as an empty space, i.e., a space without a field. Space-time does not
claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field.
[...]
[re Generalized Theory of Gravitation... after he sets Minkowski-space
as a special case of the law of gravitation...] The further development of
the theory is not so unequivocally determined by the general principle of
relativity; it has been attempted in various directions during the last few
decades. It is common to all these attempts, to conceive physical reality as
a field, and moreover, one which is a generalization of the gravitational
field, and in which the field law is a generalization of the law for the
pure gravitational field. After long probing I believe that I have now
found*[[footnote]] the most natural form for this generalization, but I have
not yet been able to find out whether this generalized law can stand up
against the facts of experience.

*[[footnote]] The generalization can be characterized in the following
way. In accordance with its derivation from empty "Minkowski space," the
pure gravitational field of the functions g_ik has the property of symmetry
given by g_ik = g_ki (g_12 = g_21, etc.). The generalized field is of the
same kind, but without this property of symmetry. The derivation of the
field law is completely analogous to that of the special case of pure
gravitation.
[Close quote]

Hope this helps you.

[Ken]
Yes, what he seems to be saying is that g12 = g21 is NOT ALWAYS TRUE, and
g12 = -g21 is possible. It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's
about it. I'm not sure you would want to start dissecting that yet.

[Pax]
It's rather difficult for sure... but I think I see what you mean, since he
was speaking of the "generalized field" as opposed to the special case with
the Minkowski space "pure gravitational field". He was saying that the
symmetry of the pure field shouldn't be expected where the generalized field
is concerned, but the pure field could be used as a simple special case
example upon which to base further considerations when finding the
generalized field.

[Ken]
Thanks for the quote, you must be a skilled typist.

[Pax]
Glad it was of help. Used to be a great typist when I was writing all the
time, getting a bit rusty now though.

Ken

Be well - Pax

Creighton Hogg wrote in message ...
On 28 Oct 2004, Pmb wrote:

Tom Roberts wrote in message om...
Pax wrote:
[...]
Strange, it seems a massless particle can have no velocity, is incapable
of momentum, and has no energy.

When you assume Newtonian mechanics, and apply it to massless particles,
you get nonsense.

p = mv is not Newtonian mechanics. Its mechanics - period. m =
constant is Newtonian mechanics. m = m(v) is relativistic mechanics.
But p = mv is a definition and as such it doesn't belong to a
particular theory. E.g. v_x = dx/dt is neither Newtonian or
relativistic. It just is. F = dp/dt isn't Newtonian and it isn't
relativistic - its just is.

Language is determined by the majority. Any particle physicist I know
would look at you funny if you said p = mv applies to photons.
Relativistic mass is not used in the majority of papers in particle
physics.

Not all relativity is particle physics. Had you asked a particle
physicist what the half life of a free neutron was he'd most likely
say "15 minutes". However that is the proper lifetime and not the
actually life time. A particle physicists would ot deny the reality of
time dialtion. Particle physicist have their own terminology and its
taylored to their work. Particle physicists don't study relativity -
they use it. A particle physicist could accelerate a small capacitor
to the speed of light but a relativist can describe its energy of it.

Particle physicists study the *intrisic* properties of particles.
Proper lifetime is such a quantity. But they simplify it for their
use.

Consider cosmologists on the other hand. They will use terminology in
a different way - one is not right and the other wrong - they just
choose to use different terminology - However if you were to ask
someone like Alan Guth if light has mass then I'm 100% positive he'd
say - Yes!

Most relativity texts that I have use relmass but simply refer to it
as mass. Wolfgang Rindler defines mass as the m in p = mv (in his new
SR/GR text pub in 2001) as do most relativists that I know of - Even
Schutz does in his new book. In his GR book he quite clearly states
that "rest mass" is not a fuction of speed whereas "inertial mass"
(what some call relativistic mass) is a function of speed.

Pmb

Creighton Hogg wrote in message ...
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Creighton Hogg wrote:



On 28 Oct 2004, Pmb wrote:

Tom Roberts wrote in message om...
Pax wrote:
[...]
Strange, it seems a massless particle can have no velocity, is incapable
of momentum, and has no energy.

When you assume Newtonian mechanics, and apply it to massless particles,
you get nonsense.

p = mv is not Newtonian mechanics. Its mechanics - period. m =
constant is Newtonian mechanics. m = m(v) is relativistic mechanics.
But p = mv is a definition and as such it doesn't belong to a
particular theory. E.g. v_x = dx/dt is neither Newtonian or
relativistic. It just is. F = dp/dt isn't Newtonian and it isn't
relativistic - its just is.

Language is determined by the majority. Any particle physicist I know
would look at you funny if you said p = mv applies to photons.
Relativistic mass is not used in the majority of papers in particle
physics.

Ah, forgot to mention also that p = mv isn't even the definition of
momentum used in mechanics. It's really dL/d(dq/dt)
for simple classical systems this reduces down to d(1/2 m v^2)/dv = m v


That is incorrect. In mechanics momentum is **always** defined as p =
mv. You're refering to cannonical momentum aka generalized momentum.
They are differnt things. In fact they have different values for a
charged particle moving in a EM field - Look it up and you'll see what
I mean. If P = canonical momentum and p = mv then P = mv + (something
else)

Pete

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
om...

Hi Pax,

Hi, Ken.

[Ken]
BEGIN RANT...

Our discussions are a sort of *fluffy* admixture of Newtonian Physics, SR,
GR, QT, QM, EM, cosmology and AE quotations, colored with inexact semantics,
that are pseudo-religious.
On top of that (as Mr. Draper kindly pointed out, in another thread) are
injections of "what if this impossible thingy applied to the universe, what
would happen then" type scenarios.

Bare in mind that we so-called physicists are just trying to make sense of
the universe by examining careful measurements, and we try to limit our
preconceived notions to a minimum, otherwise we run the risk of physics
becoming religious, and that would fracture the hard won global scientific
community by cultural differences, and that, I'm sure you understand would
be extremely detrimental to the common understanding mankind should work
toward, as that understanding tends to promote the peace among nations, and
improve living standards within those nations that evolve to more scientific
views, as the European Common Union has well demonstrated in the 20th
century, together with Russia, even though experiencing the greatest
slaughter and blood bath in a 6 year period we call WW2.

END RANT

May I suggest we pick and clearly define a question, and apply what we
know or what we can learn to it?

Pardon the top-post, but below a line by line response from me would be
incompetent. An exact response pushes my limits of understanding of applied
mathematics.

[Pax]
Thank you for your help, Ken, it's really appreciated.

This is not a peer review group, in fact it's unmoderated. You were
interested in gravity first and foremost, I naively set up a scenario that
followed gravity down. It would seem tearing something apart is the best way
to discover how it works, even if what's left won't actually work until it's
all put back together. In Physics today what's actually joined together to
make it all one whole anyway? Can any physicist say where the "bottom" is?

Mr. Draper never "kindly" points out anything, at least in his exchanges
with me. At the outset I apologized to Paul (even though his initial post in
reply to me was typically acidic). I knew our styles of thinking didn't
match from past interactions with him, but I tried again primarily due to
your comment.

He doesn't correct, he insults, and his insults are not aimed at the content
but at the person behind the content... that's counterproductive in the
extreme and says all too well what he thinks of himself, which can't be much
or he wouldn't feel the need to resort to such tactics. You're angry with
me, and yet you haven't done as he did from the first.

He underestimates the capacity of others and so he underperforms. (Notice I
said "capacity" and not knowledge.) I'm sure he can be quite capable when he
actually tries... since you seem to like him.

I'm still trying to figure out that "pseudo-religious" reference. How did
they come up with all these new theories bombarding Physics today if not by
using "Why...?" "How...?" and then "What if...?" How did Einstein come up
with his theories? "What if...?" is not heresy, nor is it stupid. Change
can't be made if "What if...?" is ignored.

Where did M-theory come from, or Quantum Physics, or Relativity, or
Newtonian Physics, or any of it all the way back? At some point someone asks
"Why...?" then "How...?" then adds "What if...?" and start from there. If
that's what you were talking about, then you don't know what "religious"
means.

Religious is what many physicists of today are who religiously follow the
crowd and the numbers, without ever raising their minds to ask the questions
that might really make a difference. The "religious" almost kept Einstein
from ever being more than not much. He never forgot what such "religion"
almost did to him and he never forgave those who practiced it, even when he
became the new god-head.

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Be well, Ken, truly - Pax

[[This is a corrected repost to replace its original and correcting
addendum, both of which have been nuked from the Usenet database and will be
gone in less than 24 hours.]]


"Paul Draper" wrote in message
om...
"Pax" wrote in message
. com...
"Paul Draper" wrote in message
om...
"Pax" wrote in message
om...

[Pax]
Exceptions are made to fit together parts that won't fit otherwise.
You have to change the rules to fit a square peg into a round hole, either
partially rounding the peg or partially squaring the hole.

[PD]
Oh, this sounds dangerous.

[Pax]
uhhuh. As you very well know, for science it should be.

[PD]
Oh, I don't know about that. Being heretical is not necessarily an
indicator of good science. Sometimes science is good AND bold, but the
latter qualifier is not sufficient for the former.

[Pax]
sigh
What I was trying to say is that *if* a scientist discovers a square peg
(partial facts without any immediately recognizable set of other facts they
could be joined with to complete a line of logical reasoning), he should try
to find a *square* hole that *square* peg fits (the correct set of other
facts that correlate naturally with his prior partial facts). He should
*not* try to reshape the peg or some hole he wishes the peg would fit so
that the peg will fit where it was never meant to fit.

The *only* "heretical" scientist who is actually a scientist first is one
who puts square pegs in the square holes they belong in, even if the
establishment insists the peg should be rounded to fit a round hole.

[Pax]
Mass is also required to calculate momentum (p). The non-zero mass
that's used is from the reaction at the source that creates the
electromagnetic wave.

What would fall down in physics if only the energy moved through them
while photons themselves did not move? Is there some foundational precept of
some area of research that would crumble if it was discovered photons were a
relatively stationary medium that transmitted electromagnetic energy through
it?

[PD]
The first thing that you need to realize is that energy doesn't flow on
its own -- it's an attribute of something.

[Pax]
What is mass if not energy? You're being inaccurate. What you're talking
about is force. Force interacts with and reacts to force.

[PD]
That something is usually described as a field or a particle -- at least,
in a quantum mechanical description (which you seem to be at least partially
employing). Consider "sweetness": We don't consider tasting an apple as the
apple being the medium that allows sweetness to flow to the tongue, do we?

[Pax]
The apple's composition includes fructose. Sweetness is there whether the
apple is eaten or not. The apples carries the sweetness, therefore it is the
primary medium in this instance, since the apple can be transported intact
and still retain the fructose until it's eaten. The process of ingestion,
transfers the fructose, etc. to the body.

[PD]
So suppose you then gave that field/particle that embodies the property
energy a name. For electromagnetic energy, we could call it something like
an "energon". In this manner, your photons would be the medium that pass
along your energons. At which point, I would respond, "Oh, see, we just have
confusion about terms. What you call energons, I call photons. And what you
call photons, I don't need at all.

[Pax]
The insistence on a further particle as the "carrier" just compounds the
problem. A true force doesn't need a carrier, all it needs is a means of
transfer... a medium. Is the energy carried in a wave here on Earth always a
primary element of the medium as a whole? Are individual elements of the
medium used to carry the energy of a wave by moving along from source to
interceptor *as* the wave?

No, the energy is transferred from element to element through the medium,
temporarily exciting each element in turn in such a way as to cause them to
transfer the temporary wave energy to the other elements around them. The
elements of the medium remain in more or less the same place they were
before the wave energy was transferred through them. Consider any of the
waves we are familiar with. If the medium is of sufficient volume and/or
density, its elements will remain relatively stationary wrt to their prior
location within the medium and merely transfer the energy of the wave.

Of course the composition of the medium does result in a "signature"
waveform for transmission of the wave energy. While light waves are
transverse... (all points on a wave oscillate along paths at right angles to
the direction of the wave's advance), sound waves are longitudinal... (a
periodic disturbance or vibration that takes place in the same direction as
the advance of the wave, compressing and rarifying as it advances), and
water waves can be a combination of both.

It's strange that transverse waves here on Earth occur in solids, not in
liquids or gasses, except in the case of surface water waves/ripples. It's
also strange that longitudinal waves travel faster than transverse waves,
and longer wavelengths travel faster than shorter wavelengths.

(Boy, I've given you a veritable arsenal to use to misinterpret and
misconstrue above, haven't I?)

[Pax]
Consider: Photons don't move. What would happen?

[PD]
Well, for one thing, I'd want to know how the photons that comprise the
medium are coupled together so that they can pass anything.

[Pax]
Consider a "motion sculpture" of loosely bunched, standing flexible rods.
How is the motion throughout the bundle of standing rods caused by your
brushing only one area at the edge of the bunch? Consider the ocean. How is
wave energy transferred from one molecule to the next? Consider a child's
toy, a net enclosure full of round plastic colored balls. How is the motion
of a child jumping in them transferred through them?

The short answer is their vast quantity and immediate proximity to each
other are sufficient to allow transmission.

[PD]
Then I'd want to know why the energy of a high-energy gamma ray gets
passed in a straight line through your medium.

[Pax]
Because transverse waves have a vector, they aren't scalar.

[PD]
Why doesn't a photon carrying all the energy of the gamma ray divvy up the
energy to all its neighbors, including ones to the side of the path?

[Pax]
Photons are massless. They are capable of transferring energy but not
retaining it.

[PD]
And if it does, how much? Here's where your model needs to get a little
more quantitatively descriptive.

[Pax]
The medium doesn't absorb any of the energy we associate as being the type
of energy we recognize relative to a particular frequency/wavelength.
However, the fact that the wave is transverse might very well mean that some
of the energy is redistributed perpendicular to the motion of travel. This
would account for what is known now as "vacuum energy", bled-off energy that
bounces around indefinitely until it builds up sufficiently to manifest as
some other, more dense form of energy.

[Pax]
If Electromagnetism is a force just as are the Strong and Weak forces,
why are subatomic particles (like gluons) required to carry it? Then what
holds gluons together? That way lies madness if particles are always
required to carry force. Standing back, one can see an infinity, not very
sound.

[PD]
That's not a foregone conclusion.

[Pax]
Yes. If a particle is always required to "carry" a force, it is, since all
particles are also waves. However, there is a final minimum size which is
determined at the basic level by the force interaction that causes all such
waves.

[PD]
Just because some particles (e.g. molecules) are conglomerates of smaller
particles does not logically demand that ALL particles are conglomerates of
others. If you insist that the universe has to be infinitely composite
("turtles all the way down"), then I would question why composition in the
other direction doesn't always happen. Namely, why don't molecules ALWAYS
bond together to form larger objects (there are such things as gases and
free molecules)?

[Pax]
I agree. Gasses are a less dense form of mass, they are the more energetic
form of their denser counterparts, their liquid and solid states. Free
molecules? A molecule is bonded within itself. It will bond to others of its
kind if given the opportunity.

[PD]
Even pointing to living organisms, why isn't there a fundamental
interaction that bonds elephants to sequoias?

[Pax]
There is. It's called "life". In life, it's exemplified by "ingestion". In
death, it's recognized as the common element carbon. However, on a DNA
level, it's hard to tell an elephant from a sequoia. On a particle level, a
rock and a person are indistinguishable. At the most basic level, Einstein
said everything is just one thing, he also said we are all "light beings".

[PD]
I'm perfectly happy with the possibility that protons are composite and
electrons, photons and gluons are not.

[Pax]
Whatever floats your boat.

[Pax]
However, if electromagnetism (or any of the forces) were considered to
not need a particle to carry it, that would really screw with a foundational
precept of Quantum Physics, wouldn't it?

[PD]
Yeah, which would be fun to diddle with, but doesn't necessarily
correspond with reality.

[Pax]
A good statement.

[PD]
We could also suppose that our universe consists of two space-like
dimensions and two time-like dimensions, which would really screw with a
foundational precept of General Relativity, but the problem is the universe
doesn't consist of two space-like dimensions and two time-like dimensions.

[Pax]
Examine M-theory.

[Pax]
Force is a reaction, a result of interaction; the results of a set of
conditions that mutually give rise to the inability for the continued
unaltered prior conditions of existence of the participants in the
interaction.

[PD]
The interaction, in quantum field theory, is precisely due to the
transmission of a boson from A to B. The emission of the boson from A is the
event that gives rise to the altered condition of A, and the absorption of
the boson by B is the event that gives rise to the altered condition of B.
In your picture, what's the agent that effects the altered conditions of
existence? If there is no agent, then what constraints can you possibly
impose on the nature of the alteration? How in your model do you explain
conservation laws?

[Pax]
Conservation laws are not in question. The other questions are really
extremely valid, and ones I ask myself constantly as I proceed. Thank you.
The major element that continues to come to the fore is electromagnetism.
This is a well so many have stepped off into, it seems rather futile. Yet
electromagnetism is at the very core of who we are and why we are alive.

[Pax]
In application, the Strong and Weak forces are more akin to gravity than
either are to electromagnetism.

Electromagnetism, unlike the other three forces can both push and pull.
Electromagnetism does attract, but it also strongly repels, something the
other three forces don't do.

[PD]
I think you need to be really careful about this.

[Pax]
Very true. I do know that the three forces, Strong, Weak, and
Electromagnetic have been unified. The fact that electromagnetism has been
unified with the other two is extremely interesting, and might be key.

[PD]
Remember that the strong force that you are used to thinking of is the
part that leaks out of protons and neutrons to bond the nucleus together --
or at least attractive bonding is what happens in most cases.

[Pax]
Force doesn't "leak", it moves... or attempts to move. Every force can be
indicative of direction. Every direction can be indicative of result. Every
result can be indicative of alteration. Change occurs as a result of force.
Everything is "built" or "destroyed" by force.

[PD]
(Although you have to ask yourself why putting two U235 nuclei close to
each other doesn't produce an X470 nucleus.)

[Pax]
X470? What on Earth is that?

[PD]
Similarly, the part of the electromagnetic interaction that leaks out of
atoms is what's responsible, in some sense, for molecular bonding -- which
is attractive in most cases.

[Pax]
Okay. However, it's electromagnetism that pushes subatomic particles away
from each other too.

[PD]
Whether a force is attractive or repulsive in a quantum field theory is
expressed by the product of signs that appear at the vertices of a Feynman
diagram. I'm guessing you don't know enough about the signs of the vertices
for strong and weak interactions to be making claims about whether these
forces are *inherently* attractive.

[Pax]
True. I'm very weak in that area of study at present, one thing I plan to
rectify as quickly as possible.

[PD]
When you study that a little bit, then we discuss it a little more
intelligently.

[Pax]
No, I don't think so. I respond badly to how badly you respond to me.

[Pax]
When overcoming any of the other three forces, electromagnetism is always
a byproduct of the force/counterforce interaction. Any time there is a
force-overcoming-force interaction, there is an electromagnetic byproduct.
Though at lower levels of force interaction the electromagnetic repulsive
reaction might not be the most immediately notable form of force applied,
still it is always there.

[PD]
I have no idea what you're talking about. Can you give an example of a
force-overcoming-force interaction and the electromagnetic byproduct that is
necessarily produced? What if I snap a twig in the dark? Are you saying the
sound that's produced is an electromagnetic by-product?

[Pax]
No, sound is not electromagnetic (though it might give rise to
electromagnetic effects), it's a result of force, a longitudinal impact wave
in the air caused by the energy involved in snapping the twig.

However, the impulses sent to your muscles are electromagnetic. Also the
snapping of the twig alters its structure, changing the state of some of its
fibers, which translates downward to its molecules, which translates
downward to its atoms, especially along the breaking point, this results in
an uptake or emission of electromagnetic pulses in the areas of the twig
undergoing stress. Some of the force is translated into heat, some into
electromagnetism, some into repulsive force which may cause parts of the
twig to be ejected from the main mass to go flying off in the direction
directly opposite from the area of greatest applied stress.

[Pax]
Einstein stated in his last book, Ideas and Opinions, that the field
that permeated spacetime was composed of gravity and electromagnetism. He
further stated that this dual-force field was merely an extension/result of
mass. It was his opinion that everything was just one thing.

[PD]
Yup, and of course, he didn't really have a grip on it. That was his
expression of faith.

[Pax]
A statement easily made but hard to prove.

[Pax]
(Hmmm... could that then mean that while the internal supraforce is
gravitational in nature, the external supraforce, responsible for charge and
expansion, is electromagnetic? If so, the external force has the ability
both to attract and repel. If that's the case, could the internal force and
the external force be combined into different manifestations of one force?
Neat to think about. Is our universe a giant magnet? This last is for me.
Don't really expect you to consider it, just putting it down so I wouldn't
forget it in context.)

[PD]
Is it really appropriate to use a newsgroup as your brain-fart journal?
Isn't it a bit presumptuous to imagine that absolutely every idea that leaps
into your head is worth publicizing?

[Pax]
If you can, why can't I?

[PD]
I'm not intending to put a damper on your cogitations.

[Pax]
Of course you are.

[Pd]
It's just that a "Could it be that...?" question shouldn't be exciting to
you until you think the ramifications through a little bit more (including
developing a quantitative model) and checking against known, measurable
facts starts showing agreement. A good bit of advice is to precede every
"Could it be that...?" question with a self-aware disclaimer, such as "This
is probably complete crap, but could it be that...?" That's actually how
*good* scientists think.

[Pax]
Why are you so certain I haven't thought it through? Of course I'm not
finished, never considered at this stage I might reach such a point I could
call "finished". A lot of what you say is almost complete crap, but you
don't bother to keep from saying it anyway, do you? If you have studied so
deeply and I so little, why can I so easily find your errors?

Why are you so certain you are right even when I, though I've supposedly
studied less, can counter you at every turn? Why are you such a
condescending asshole? Great men with real justification to adopt such an
attitude have nonetheless had the good sense not to be so full of
themselves. (Never mind, I just answered my own question.) If what I say
disturbs you, then at least pay attention and restudy enough to truly
challenge what I've said.

[PD]
Be well yourself. And be humble most of all.

[Pax]
Good advice. Why don't you take it?

In the meanwhile, I'm doing as I should've done from the first with you and
cutting this here. I'm sure you'll feel the need to respond, and that's
understandable. My wish is that you actually do respond in some intelligent,
elucidating manner. I will read it, but I won't respond.

PD

Stay well away from me and, what the heck,
be well otherwise - Pax

PS - Have deleted some things re you personally, however, I still think
them. In other words, I'm unrepentant, but Ken took offense, and I happen to
respect him.

"Pax" wrote in message om...
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
om...

Hi Pax,

Hi, Ken.

[Ken]
BEGIN RANT...

Our discussions are a sort of *fluffy* admixture of Newtonian Physics, SR,
GR, QT, QM, EM, cosmology and AE quotations, colored with inexact semantics,
that are pseudo-religious.
On top of that (as Mr. Draper kindly pointed out, in another thread) are
injections of "what if this impossible thingy applied to the universe, what
would happen then" type scenarios.

Bare in mind that we so-called physicists are just trying to make sense of
the universe by examining careful measurements, and we try to limit our
preconceived notions to a minimum, otherwise we run the risk of physics
becoming religious, and that would fracture the hard won global scientific
community by cultural differences, and that, I'm sure you understand would
be extremely detrimental to the common understanding mankind should work
toward, as that understanding tends to promote the peace among nations, and
improve living standards within those nations that evolve to more scientific
views, as the European Common Union has well demonstrated in the 20th
century, together with Russia, even though experiencing the greatest
slaughter and blood bath in a 6 year period we call WW2.

END RANT

May I suggest we pick and clearly define a question, and apply what we
know or what we can learn to it?

Pardon the top-post, but below a line by line response from me would be
incompetent. An exact response pushes my limits of understanding of applied
mathematics.

[Pax]
Thank you for your help, Ken, it's really appreciated.

This is not a peer review group, in fact it's unmoderated. You were
interested in gravity first and foremost, I naively set up a scenario that
followed gravity down. It would seem tearing something apart is the best way
to discover how it works, even if what's left won't actually work until it's
all put back together. In Physics today what's actually joined together to
make it all one whole anyway? Can any physicist say where the "bottom" is?

Looking at how the mass of the Sun can
be a length 1.47 km certainly was fun.

Mr. Draper never "kindly" points out anything, at least in his exchanges
with me. At the outset I apologized to Paul (even though his initial post in
reply to me was typically acidic). I knew our styles of thinking didn't
match from past interactions with him, but I tried again primarily due to
your comment.

I'm a two fingered typist, and one of them
doesn't work so good, so what you type in 10
minutes takes me an hour! But if a guy provides
some information and attacks your argument
that's ok, because that person is taking the time
to consider and respond to your ideas, and that
certainly is our motive when we post.
When character attacks occur, like when someone
calls someone else stupid that's irritating bull-poop.

That's your call of course, I find Mr. Draper's posts
informative, and yours stimulating.

BEGIN RANT

Did I ever tell you the story of the crazy
cave man that decided to cook a rock?

Well, while all the cave girls and boys are
cooking there corn and T-Rex meat, this one
funny looking skinny cave guy starts cooking
a rock. All the other people finish cooking,
eating, and naturally retire to make more cave
people

After a few days, skinny cave guy has a
puddle of hard metal, copper, maybe iron
in the bottom of fire pit where it cooled
in the cooler moist sand.

Mental became Metal

And the moral is, flame the theory, roast it,
cook it down, but don't bug the skinny guy

END RANT

He doesn't correct, he insults, and his insults are not aimed at the content
but at the person behind the content... that's counterproductive in the
extreme and says all too well what he thinks of himself, which can't be much
or he wouldn't feel the need to resort to such tactics. You're angry with
me, and yet you haven't done as he did from the first.

I'm not angry with you!

SCENARIO

Two kids start playing together, 95% of the
time they smile and laugh together, 5% they
beat each other over the head and cry.

Should we say stop playing together, the 5%
is taking a severe emotional toll?

If you're really a granny, I'm sure you'll
understand what I mean.

He underestimates the capacity of others and so he underperforms. (Notice I
said "capacity" and not knowledge.) I'm sure he can be quite capable when he
actually tries... since you seem to like him.

I'm still trying to figure out that "pseudo-religious" reference. How did
they come up with all these new theories bombarding Physics today if not by
using "Why...?" "How...?" and then "What if...?" How did Einstein come up
with his theories? "What if...?" is not heresy, nor is it stupid. Change
can't be made if "What if...?" is ignored.

I sure would enjoy killing a bottle of scotch
in front of a cracklin fire with you. I live
in BC, where do you live?

Where did M-theory come from, or Quantum Physics, or Relativity, or
Newtonian Physics, or any of it all the way back? At some point someone asks
"Why...?" then "How...?" then adds "What if...?" and start from there. If
that's what you were talking about, then you don't know what "religious"
means.

Religious is what many physicists of today are who religiously follow the
crowd and the numbers, without ever raising their minds to ask the questions
that might really make a difference. The "religious" almost kept Einstein
from ever being more than not much. He never forgot what such "religion"
almost did to him and he never forgave those who practiced it, even when he
became the new god-head.

Yes, I think the fascination with religion in
physics is embodied in the BiG BanG theory.
Humans will forever desire to cast the universe
from the PoV of mortality, it's an ego thing,
nothing can be greater than all of me.

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Be well, Ken, truly - Pax

Thanks, I'm happy with my ideas being
flamed, never hesitate...cook them down,
rock on
Ken

(Pmb) wrote in message . com...
Creighton Hogg wrote in message ...
On 28 Oct 2004, Pmb wrote:

Tom Roberts wrote in message om...
Pax wrote:
[...]
Strange, it seems a massless particle can have no velocity, is incapable
of momentum, and has no energy.

When you assume Newtonian mechanics, and apply it to massless particles,
you get nonsense.

p = mv is not Newtonian mechanics. Its mechanics - period. m =
constant is Newtonian mechanics. m = m(v) is relativistic mechanics.
But p = mv is a definition and as such it doesn't belong to a
particular theory. E.g. v_x = dx/dt is neither Newtonian or
relativistic. It just is. F = dp/dt isn't Newtonian and it isn't
relativistic - its just is.

Language is determined by the majority. Any particle physicist I know
would look at you funny if you said p = mv applies to photons.
Relativistic mass is not used in the majority of papers in particle
physics.

Not all relativity is particle physics. Had you asked a particle
physicist what the half life of a free neutron was he'd most likely
say "15 minutes". However that is the proper lifetime and not the
actually life time. A particle physicists would ot deny the reality of
time dialtion. Particle physicist have their own terminology and its
taylored to their work. Particle physicists don't study relativity -
they use it. A particle physicist could accelerate a small capacitor
to the speed of light but a relativist can describe its energy of it.

Particle physicists study the *intrisic* properties of particles.
Proper lifetime is such a quantity. But they simplify it for their
use.

Consider cosmologists on the other hand. They will use terminology in
a different way - one is not right and the other wrong - they just
choose to use different terminology - However if you were to ask
someone like Alan Guth if light has mass then I'm 100% positive he'd
say - Yes!

Most relativity texts that I have use relmass but simply refer to it
as mass. Wolfgang Rindler defines mass as the m in p = mv (in his new
SR/GR text pub in 2001) as do most relativists that I know of - Even
Schutz does in his new book. In his GR book he quite clearly states
that "rest mass" is not a fuction of speed whereas "inertial mass"
(what some call relativistic mass) is a function of speed.

Pmb

Thanks Pete
nice essay.
Ken