Gravitational Charge as Appearing From an Inertial field

The nature of mass as a charge is quickly looked at, where a direct relationship between intrinsic rest energy and a system which has a gravitational charge is analyzed.

Mass as Being Equivalent to Gravity and Acceleration

The Weak Equivalence Principle (WEP) in the format of General Relativity states that inertial mass M_i is equivalent to gravitational mass, given as Mg. This means that in the light of understanding this relationship lets you cancel the mass-terms on both sides of:

M_i a=Mg

To leave a=g showing that acceleration and gravitation where completely synonymous; in fact, the WEP states that mass = gravitational charge. You can find this definition in any good relativistic textbook. Mass appears then in relativity, as being proportional to acceleration and gravity - you cannot expect the appearance of mass without the existence of a gravitational field and acceleration - this also goes along with curvature and if extended theories like the Einstein-Cartan theory is correct as a part of the full poncare group, then even torsion.

Mass of course, has been defined mathematically in physics as being a symmetry-breaking. The idea of a particle having a mass however can be viewed in terms of a gravitational charge, analogous to how a particle experiences an electric charge as it moves through an electromagnetic field. The idea of viewing mass as a charge is often overlooked; though the relationship can be understood with the insight that:

E_e = e \phi 1.

and

E_g = M \phi 2.

Where e is the electric charge, and the only thing which differs equation 1. with equation two, is that the electric charge is replaced with mass, making the first equation the energy in respect to the electric charge times the gradient, so the second equation can be said to be the mass charge times the gradient which makes the gravitational energy.

Quantized Gravitational Mass

Quantizing mass as a charge can be given as:

\frac{GM^2}{c} = \hbar

This is shown by Motz (3) and (1), this is the gravitational quantization of \sqrt{GM}, which is just the square root of the gravitational parameter \mu = GM in Newtonian physics. By this understanding, the gravitational charge denoted here as \chi is therefore associate to an inertial energy \chi = \sqrt{E_0 \frac{G}{c^2}} by this relation. This means that the definition of an inertial energy (that is a particle with a rest mass) is directly related to the gravitational charge.

The ''standard gravitational charge'' \chi = \sqrt{GM} = \sqrt{E_0 \frac{G}{c^2}} can be further seen in terms of the equation:

\chi = \sqrt{(Mc^2 + M \phi) \frac{G}{c^2}}

Where \sqrt{(Mc^2 + M \phi) denotes the total energy of our system. As always, the potential part of the equation M \phi always has the interesting dynamics. It could also be said, that this equation can see \chi as a dynamical inertial field, or matter-field attributed to things that obtain a gravitational charge and thus a mass.

Of course, it must be borne in mind that relativistic mass is the same as an invariant rest mass when observed from its rest frame. The idea that gravitational mass and invariant energy are related, comes from the indisputed fact that invariant mass infers rest mass and a rest mass must infer a gravitational charge if it is defined as a mass.

[Can't post links, PM me if you want them]

Now I can post it:


)1] - http://www.springerlink.com/content/u664r22453474v26/

2] - http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V06NO3PDF/V06N3str.pdf

3] - http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1971/motz.pdf

4] - http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0107/0107008v1.pdf

5] - http://www.astrohandbook.com/ch10/general_relativity.pdf (page: 97

...The Weak Equivalence Principle (WEP) in the format of General Relativity states that inertial mass M_i is equivalent to gravitational mass, given as Mg.No problem.


This means that in the light of understanding this relationship lets you cancel the mass-terms on both sides of:

M_i a=Mg

To leave a=g showing that acceleration and gravitation where completely synonymous; in fact, the WEP states that mass = gravitational charge. You can find this definition in any good relativistic textbook.I'm cautious about the word "mass", in that it usually refers to rest mass rather than mass-equivalence, and it's energy that causes gravity. No, not even that, because if the energy density is uniform, there's no gμv gradient. And I'm not fond of gravitational charge I'm afraid, because it's describing something in terms of something that isn't explained at the fundamental level. Different particles have all sorts of different masses, but their charges are far more limited.


Mass appears then in relativity, as being proportional to acceleration and gravity - you cannot expect the appearance of mass without the existence of a gravitational field and acceleration - this also goes along with curvature and if extended theories like the Einstein-Cartan theory is correct as a part of the full poncare group, then even torsion.Nice to hear a mention of Einstein-Cartan.


Mass of course, has been defined mathematically in physics as being a symmetry-breaking.Can you tell me more about this?


The idea of a particle having a mass however can be viewed in terms of a gravitational charge, analogous to how a particle experiences an electric charge as it moves through an electromagnetic field...I guess it can. OK. I'll go with the flow.


Quantizing mass as a charge can be given as:

\frac{GM^2}{c} = \hbar

This is shown by Motz (3) and (1), this is the gravitational quantization of \sqrt{GM}, which is just the square root of the gravitational parameter \mu = GM in Newtonian physics. By this understanding, the gravitational charge denoted here as \chi is therefore associate to an inertial energy \chi = \sqrt{E_0 \frac{G}{c^2}} by this relation. This means that the definition of an inertial energy (that is a particle with a rest mass) is directly related to the gravitational charge.I'd better read the Motz paper. Until then: OK, sounds good to me.


The ''standard gravitational charge'' \chi = \sqrt{GM} = \sqrt{E_0 \frac{G}{c^2}} can be further seen in terms of the equation:

\chi = \sqrt{(Mc^2 + M \phi) \frac{G}{c^2}}

Where \sqrt{(Mc^2 + M \phi) denotes the total energy of our system.I've never heard of a standard gravitational charge. I went to look it up and could only find this (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en-GB&rlz=1T4ADBF_en-GBGB240GB240&q=cache:2ECSH2eo3m0J:http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=519836+%22standard+gravitational+ charge%22&ct=clnk) google-cached thread of yours.


As always, the potential part of the equation M \phi always has the interesting dynamics. It could also be said, that this equation can see \chi as a dynamical inertial field, or matter-field attributed to things that obtain a gravitational charge and thus a mass.Hmmn. Sounds like a quantum-harmonic quintessence. A Higgs substance. An aether. Space itself.


Of course, it must be borne in mind that relativistic mass is the same as an invariant rest mass when observed from its rest frame.No probs.


The idea that gravitational mass and invariant energy are related, comes from the indisputed fact that invariant mass infers rest mass and a rest mass must infer a gravitational charge if it is defined as a mass.I didn't quite get that. Sorry. I'll look again after I've read some of those links.

Meanwhile here's how I see it in simple terms: a free-falling cannonball isn't actually accelerating, instead it's you accelerating when you're standing on the surface of the earth. You feel "the force of gravity" on the soles of your feet. In similar vein a cannonball in free-fall isn't subject to force in the usual sense. But when you try to catch it, you're looking at a cannonball that's moving, exerting momentum that's hard to resist, hence \vec{F} = \frac{\mathrm{d}\vec{p}}{\mathrm{d}t}. Equate this to special relativity when you're up in space accelerating towards a motionless cannonball. Then say your acceleration is due to the active gravitational mass of the cannonball. When you catch it, you don't feel its momentum, you feel its inertia. But you feel the same resistance to change-in-motion either way because it's the same cannonball, hence active gravitational mass and inertial mass are the same.

Whilst I will reply to everything you said eventually, I will admit that other physics forum did not accept my references. They took most of it as a psuedoscience, without taking into consideration 1) and 3) ref. refer to each other.

There is also nothing special about the term of a gravitational mass. The charges are the elements of the Lie algebra of the locally gauged group. Mass-charge is simply the term M.

Also ''standard gravitational charge'' is my own naming. See, the gravitational parameter is given as GM, so the quantization of this is developed from the gravitational charge, given by Motz. So the standard parameter is the standard charge, the calculatable charge; the volume of mass, or the weight of it, is itself a charge in a gravitational field, as much as an electron experiences an eletcormagnetic charge in a EM field.

Different particles have all sorts of different masses, but their charges are far more limited.

Which is what \phi M determines. Particle mass relys on the potential.

Hmmn. Sounds like a quantum-harmonic quintessence. A Higgs substance. An aether. Space itself.

A type of quantum aether... particles like those which do obide by M^2 \phi^2 is actually an oscillation of energy, at least, the interpretation is.

''Can you tell me more about this?''

What do you want to know?

Hmmn. Sounds like a quantum-harmonic quintessence. A Higgs substance. An aether. Space itself.Still can't resist throwing in buzzwords, unrelated to one another, which you don't understand.

And you wonder why people think you're a hack.


There is also nothing special about the term of a gravitational mass. The charges are the elements of the Lie algebra of the locally gauged group. Mass-charge is simply the term M.Looks like another person who doesn't know their definitions. The charges are not elements of a Lie algebra, they are coefficients of Lie algebras terms. For instance, the Yang-Mills field term can be written as \frac{1}{g^{2}}F_{ab}F^{ab} where g is a coupling but the Lie algebra terms are contained within the Fs.

You also talk about M\phi as an equation, when its an expression. You talk about the potential term, which is not given or even described and then you talk about it being a dynamical field but at no point have you given anything to do with a time derivative. This sort of basic mistakes in descriptions, including not knowing what's an expression and what is an equation, is typical of a certain regularly banned (due to regularly returning) member.

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to the specifics, addressing the issues I just highlighted. That way we can all see you've just slipped up and its not a sign you don't understand it. After all, you wouldn't want to be labelled with the same hack label as Farsight.

I search and search, I can't find anywhere which treats M\phi as an expression: I did say the M\phi potential which is part of the equation, I never said it was an equation by itself. E_p = M\phi is an equation.



The charges are not elements of a Lie algebra, they are coefficients of Lie algebras terms. For instance, the Yang-Mills field term can be written as \frac{1}{g^{2}}F_{ab}F^{ab} where g is a coupling but the Lie algebra terms are contained within the Fs.

I meant coefficients.

Note this also the covers the potential part. E_p= M \phi is a potential energy - a very simple potential. So I don't understand what you mean at all, when I speak of M\phi as an equation, nor can I understand why you say I mention M\phi and not speak of a potential. This is the potential term in the equation. The equation E_p = M\phi holds in any physics textbook.

Electromagnetic mass is given as:

M_{em}= (\frac{4}{3})\frac{E_{em}}{c^2}

This can increase the normal mechanical mass of the body. The electromagnetic mass can increase with velocity, a rather distinguishable factor of Einsteins Relativity.
Understanding that the electromagnetic field can contribute a mass to a particle then it can be also understood that the mass of a particle depends on it's connection to the inertial field. The inertial field is again:

\chi = \sqrt{(Mc^2 + M\phi)\frac{G}{c}} 1.

and the quantized gravitational charge of a particle is given as:

\sqrt{GM} 2.

Now we make the assumption that the inertial energy is an electromagnetic energy, which we will see we can take the mass to be an electromagnetic mass by substitution.

\chi = \sqrt{E_0\frac{G}{c}} 3.

the electromagnetic energy is given as:

E_{em}= \frac{1}{2}\frac{e^2}{a} 4.

Equation 4. can be plugged into equation 3. to give

\chi = \sqrt{\frac{1}{2}\frac{e^2}{a}\frac{G}{c}} 5.

The inertial energy is an electromagnetic mass - which typically must mean there is a presence of a gravitational charge in our field. So mass is obtained by the relation:

M_{em} = \frac{4}{3} \frac{e^2}{ac^2} 6.

In principle you can create particles with potential energy, the prototypical case is color confinement. If such cases exist, it is argued that potential energy can indeed contribute to the rest energy of a particle.

The effects will remain local of course on the particle itself, and would imply that the potential field interacts with the structure of the particle. If indeed you can create particles from a potential field, then there is the suggestive thought that the potential has the dynamics in understanding negative and positive signs for mass charge. The gravitational potential energy, is just as real as a rest energy to particle.

In our case above, most notably equation 5) we have a case where mass can be defined quite well by the electromagnetic charge case. This would mean that gravitational mass must be part of the same appearance of the electromagnetic mass case; the appearance of any mass calculatable by anything other than a graviational field, is still a contribution to the graviational charge.

Joe,

Just so you know the thread is not forgotten, I am still digesting and chewing the cud, so to speak.

I do have some trouble with the whole gravitational charge idea and any connection between EM derived mass and gravitational/inertial mass.

While I believe that inertia and gravitation are emergent phenomena, when compared to electromagnetism, EM would seem to be a 2nd generation emergent force, more closely associated with atomic structure and mechanics, than mass.

Joe,

Just so you know the thread is not forgotten, I am still digesting and chewing the cud, so to speak.

I do have some trouble with the whole gravitational charge idea and any connection between EM derived mass and gravitational/inertial mass.

While I believe that inertia and gravitation are emergent phenomena, when compared to electromagnetism, EM would seem to be a 2nd generation emergent force, more closely associated with atomic structure and mechanics, than mass.

Yes you don't need EM to explain why things have mass, EM charge can only contribute to an existing mass. EM however, is a charge even in the most fundamental of particles and this must be remembered. Even when a particle is electrically nuetral, there still exists a magnetic moment.

Yes you don't need EM to explain why things have mass, EM charge can only contribute to an existing mass. EM however, is a charge even in the most fundamental of particles and this must be remembered. Even when a particle is electrically nuetral, there still exists a magnetic moment.

Both gravity and inertia seem to have a direct relationship with mass. I don't see the EM contribution to mass. While it is true that everything we are able to observe with current technology has a charge of some sort, that in itself does not make charge a contributing component when considering mass. It could be as easily argued that EM is emergent from the interaction of mass and energy.

Some of this may be an artifact of limitations in our ability to perceive the world, which is completely dependent upon atomic and molecular interactions, which are charge related. We cannot just assume that because at it's most basic level our perception is so limited, the fundamental nature of anything must be similarly limited.

And I don't believe I have seen anything that suggests that the neutrino has even a magnetic moment. It seems to interact only weakly with any matter and even then seldom.

Some of what comes to mind for me in free thinking this is probably not relevant specifically to the topic. It is just I have a habit of challenging anything new to me against a fairly wide range of experience and observation.

A type of quantum aether... particles like those which do obide by M^2 \phi^2 is actually an oscillation of energy, at least, the interpretation is.In what sense is that an energy oscillation


EM however, is a charge even in the most fundamental of particles and this must be remembered. Even when a particle is electrically nuetral, there still exists a magnetic moment.Photons, neutrinos, gluons, Z bosons, none of those have magnetic moments. The electrically neutral particles which have magnetic moments are not fundamental, they are composite and thus they still possess dipole effects.


I meant coefficients.Somehow I don't believe you.


\chi = \sqrt{(Mc^2 + M\phi)\frac{G}{c}} 1.

and the quantized gravitational charge of a particle is given as:

\sqrt{GM} 2.Why? Why is it quantised and why is that the charge. Please demonstrate it. You've said certain things which might lead someone to think you're familiar with the sort of procedure of logic employed to examine such things but the actual mathematics you've done are trivial things, just subbing one ratio into another or taking roots of things. Quantisation procedures are much more involved in that. Rather than doing trivial (and I mean aged 13 trivial) mathematics and dropping high level buzzwords why don't you give the high level derivations? As yet you've don't really done anything. None of your methods start out from a well defined place. None of your equations, beyond those so basic they are pointless to examine, are placed in context or justified and no conclusion meaningful.

What precisely as you trying to do, because presently it seems like you want to be seen to be 'doing physics', talking about relativity, quantum mechanics, quantisation etc but nothing you've done is mathematically beyond a competent 15 year old. If you truly know about Lie algebras you'd be familiar enough with physics and maths books to know what you present is terrible quality and trivial or pointless mathematically. Let's see the details, including clear and precise definitions, context and walk throughs.

This is for both Joe and Alpha,

While I have worked with this kind of math in the past, it has been a very long time ago. I can generally work my way through, but it often takes effort and sometimes I need to do a little homework style research.

There have only been four of us posting. Though I don't contribute anything to the mathematical discussion, I do try to follow it. There are about 300 people who have dropped in.

With that in mind when and if you do post the math to support your points of view it would be helpful if you also, clearly defined the terms. Make it a little easier to follow.

[QUOTE=AlphaNumeric;2797524]In what sense is that an energy oscillation [QUOTE]

Oscillations away from the ground state in the potential is the presence of a mass.

[QUOTE=AlphaNumeric;2797524]Photons, neutrinos, gluons, Z bosons, none of those have magnetic moments. The electrically neutral particles which have magnetic moments are not fundamental, they are composite and thus they still possess dipole effects. [QUOTE]

That is true, none of those particles have a charge. Perhaps I should have been more thorough; I meant it in the sense that some particles are electrically nuetral while others can still have a magnetic moment.

[QUOTE=AlphaNumeric;2797524]Somehow I don't believe you.[QUOTE]

Yet my only mistake in my sentance was confusing the elements with coefficients.

[QUOTE=AlphaNumeric;2797524]Why? Why is it quantised and why is that the charge. Please demonstrate it. [QUOTE]

I don't know many 13 year olds who can talk about quantum mechanics, let alone know about potentials and whatnot.

Anyway, read my links. You will find out why \sqrt{GM} is a quantized gravitational charge. Motz studies the enormously large value of G inside a particle.

[QUOTE=AlphaNumeric;2797524]What precisely as you trying to do, because presently it seems like you want to be seen to be 'doing physics', talking about relativity, quantum mechanics, quantisation etc but nothing you've done is mathematically beyond a competent 15 year old. If you truly know about Lie algebras you'd be familiar enough with physics and maths books to know what you present is terrible quality and trivial or pointless mathematically. Let's see the details, including clear and precise definitions, context and walk throughs.[QUOTE]

I linked my sources. Follow them through, and you wouldn't be asking the questions you are.

Read this: http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1971/motz.pdf

Both gravity and inertia seem to have a direct relationship with mass. I don't see the EM contribution to mass. While it is true that everything we are able to observe with current technology has a charge of some sort, that in itself does not make charge a contributing component when considering mass. It could be as easily argued that EM is emergent from the interaction of mass and energy.

Some of this may be an artifact of limitations in our ability to perceive the world, which is completely dependent upon atomic and molecular interactions, which are charge related. We cannot just assume that because at it's most basic level our perception is so limited, the fundamental nature of anything must be similarly limited.

And I don't believe I have seen anything that suggests that the neutrino has even a magnetic moment. It seems to interact only weakly with any matter and even then seldom.

Some of what comes to mind for me in free thinking this is probably not relevant specifically to the topic. It is just I have a habit of challenging anything new to me against a fairly wide range of experience and observation.
I was far too vague. I did not mean all particles, I meant that certain particles, like a nuetron can be devoid of an electric charge, but still have a magnetic moment. Also EM mass is not my own creation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_mass

Interestingly there was a time it was linked to inertial mass - but of course not all particles can have an EM contribution. Higgs also becomes quite obsurd when you realize that only 1% of all matter is actually effected by a Higgs field, not to mention some theories require 5 different higgs bosons.

I was far too vague. I did not mean all particles, I meant that certain particles, like a nuetron can be devoid of an electric charge, but still have a magnetic moment. Also EM mass is not my own creation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_mass

Interestingly there was a time it was linked to inertial mass - but of course not all particles can have an EM contribution. Higgs also becomes quite obsurd when you realize that only 1% of all matter is actually effected by a Higgs field, not to mention some theories require 5 different higgs bosons.

O.K. Joe, I ran through the wiki link quickly. I will have to go back read again later.

In the case of a single particle I can see how its angular momentum could increase its inertial resistance to motion which is not in a line with its angular momentum. This would be very much like a subatomic gyroscope. In the case of particles I can see some potential of a kinetic mechanism associated with its angular momentum which could affect its inertial resistance.

Can it be assumed that a charged sphere when compared with an uncharged sphere has more particles or atoms similarly alined? In magnetic metals such an alinement at an atomic scale exists.

If so I can see a kinetic connection between an increase in inertia associated with an electromagnetic component.

I would not call it an increase in mass as that reasoning becomes circular to some extent. A gyroscope does not increase its mass when spinning, yet its inertia does change.

Inertia and mass are very difficult terms, they both are used or misused in ways that confuse clear definition.

O.K. Joe, I ran through the wiki link quickly. I will have to go back read again later.

In the case of a single particle I can see how its angular momentum could increase its inertial resistance to motion which is not in a line with its angular momentum. This would be very much like a subatomic gyroscope. In the case of particles I can see some potential of a kinetic mechanism associated with its angular momentum which could affect its inertial resistance.

Can it be assumed that a charged sphere when compared with an uncharged sphere has more particles or atoms similarly alined? In magnetic metals such an alinement at an atomic scale exists.

If so I can see a kinetic connection between an increase in inertia associated with an electromagnetic component.

I would not call it an increase in mass as that reasoning becomes circular to some extent. A gyroscope does not increase its mass when spinning, yet its inertia does change.

Inertia and mass are very difficult terms, they both are used or misused in ways that confuse clear definition.

Oh certainly, kinetic energy which increases by the speed of the system increases the intrinsic energy and so increases mass, and so must overall locally effect the inertia in respect to the WEP.


Can it be assumed that a charged sphere when compared with an uncharged sphere has more particles or atoms similarly alined? In magnetic metals such an alinement at an atomic scale exists.

Well, a classical electron, meaning it has a classical radius (which seems to be a preferred model often), states that there are no composite particles which makes it. It is fundamental.

As for a gyroscope, I am not entirely certain. Is that because it is a ficticious force? You can teach me this :P

What I have done is see gravitational charge \sqrt{GM} in terms of energy \chi = \sqrt{E_0 \frac{G}{c^2}}. You can expand the understanding of rest mass to apply to the total energy of a system, where the inertial energy is:

\sqrt{(Mc^2 + M \phi)

Einstein already speculated that in his paper on the inertia of energy, that inertia of course was related to the energy of the system. Could understanding gravitational charge in terms of energy be helpful for the quantization aspect of understanding the origins of inertia?

Joe Green:

Could you please compare your thread with the one I've just begun? (I believe that yours (sort of) supports mine, but I much prefer the humiliation of correction to the ignominy of unknowingly teaching falsehood.)

Joe Green:

Could you please compare your thread with the one I've just begun? (I believe that yours (sort of) supports mine, but I much prefer the humiliation of correction to the ignominy of unknowingly teaching falsehood.)

I had a look. I can't compare too much. I believe your thread tackles issues which isn't directly comparable to quantization.

That's the whole problem. String theory isn't amenable to experimental validation, so I guess I'm just back to square one on this point. :(

Thanks, anyways!

Oh certainly, kinetic energy which increases by the speed of the system increases the intrinsic energy and so increases mass, and so must overall locally effect the inertia in respect to the WEP.


If you assume an object with only a linear motion, moving in a straight line, while its velocity influences its inertial resistance to a change in motion, as in any force acting to accelerate or decelerate it, in this situation its inertia is changed when compared to the same object at rest. However, if its motion has no component other than moving in that straight line, the energy required to change its vector, say 90 degrees to its linear motion is unchanged. Its inertia is affected by its velocity only in the direction of motion.

Its mass never changes, just its inertia relative to its existing motion.

This is a macrocosmic not quantum view. What is happening at the quantum level is not observable from this stand point.


Well, a classical electron, meaning it has a classical radius (which seems to be a preferred model often), states that there are no composite particles which makes it. It is fundamental.

It gets very difficult when talking about QM effects and mechanics as they apply to the macrocosmic scale of ordinary matter and everyday experience. QM should reduce (for want of a better term) at macrocosmic scales to consistency with everyday experience and observation. I take that as meaning that at the quantum level uncertainty is a factor that is not present at the macroscopic scale. We cannot say what an individual electron is doing at any specific time or place. We can say what electrons are doing generally in a complex substance of everyday experience.

The atoms and electrons in magnetized iron are more uniformly alined than in unmagnetized iron.


As for a gyroscope, I am not entirely certain. Is that because it is a ficticious force? You can teach me this :P

I am not sure if it is the fictitious force, i.e. centrifugal force involved, or the angular momentum itself. I tend toward angular momentum. Macroscopically if you spin an object at 90 degrees to it linear velocity, it will resist any change to its linear line of travel that also affects it axis of rotation, to a greater degree than the same object with no spin. This works with bullets and is proposed for at least one of the private space flight rocket boosters (to replace the need for complex gyroscope and thruster control).

A gyroscope works in the same way. When spun up to sufficient angular momentum it will always attempt to maintain a constant spacial orientation relative to its axis of angular momentum. (I know that was said awkwardly.) you can move it freely in line with, or even at a 90 degree angle to, its axis of rotation. Any attempt to move it such that you change the orientation in space of its axis of rotation requires a greater effort. Its inertia is greater for any motion that involves a change in the orientation of it rotation axis.

It would seem that this would also hold true for any particle having mass and angular momentum.

Only in as much as the angular momentum affects a particle's magnetic moment would the EM state of the particle be connected to this effect. In either case I don't see this as an increase in mass, as much as an increase in inertia unrelated, at least directly unrelated, to mass. A gyroscope's mass is not increased by its angular momentum and yet its inertial resistance to change is definitely altered, relative to its axis of rotation.

Since in most everyday materials the atoms and particles are not general arranged uniformly relative to the individual angular momentums of their component parts, atomic and sub atomic, the material as a whole should exhibit an inertia that is nonspecific to direction.

However, could it be that the angular momentum of subatomic particles, are at least a contributor to the particle's inertia and mass?

I still see EM as a higher level emergent phenomena/force(s) and only indirectly involved in inertia and mass. EM mass appears to me to be a somewhat archaic concept.

Pleas forgive my rambling, this is really a off the cuff discussion of what comes to mind.

Reiku? Again?

Reiku? Again?Precisely, hence me asking him to do more than remedial mathematics, the stuff high schoolers can do. He thinks if he throws in high level buzzwords people won't notice he's doing nothing viable at all.

Quite why he thinks no one can tell I don't know. He must enjoy pissing his life away.

Precisely, hence me asking him to do more than remedial mathematics, the stuff high schoolers can do. He thinks if he throws in high level buzzwords people won't notice he's doing nothing viable at all.

Quite why he thinks no one can tell I don't know. He must enjoy pissing his life away.

What are you talking about? A very delusional perspective, from one who questions my motives, when papers I assign are not read.

You seem to have a PhD in physics, yet your attentive awareness seems to be lacking somewhat, considering you have got wrong quite a few things since the beginning of your rambling. The first comes to mind, where you think I took M \phi as an equation. Address me like an adult, and you shall be treated as such.

If you assume an object with only a linear motion, moving in a straight line, while its velocity influences its inertial resistance to a change in motion, as in any force acting to accelerate or decelerate it, in this situation its inertia is changed when compared to the same object at rest. However, if its motion has no component other than moving in that straight line, the energy required to change its vector, say 90 degrees to its linear motion is unchanged. Its inertia is affected by its velocity only in the direction of motion.

Its mass never changes, just its inertia relative to its existing motion.

This is a macrocosmic not quantum view. What is happening at the quantum level is not observable from this stand point.



It gets very difficult when talking about QM effects and mechanics as they apply to the macrocosmic scale of ordinary matter and everyday experience. QM should reduce (for want of a better term) at macrocosmic scales to consistency with everyday experience and observation. I take that as meaning that at the quantum level uncertainty is a factor that is not present at the macroscopic scale. We cannot say what an individual electron is doing at any specific time or place. We can say what electrons are doing generally in a complex substance of everyday experience.

The atoms and electrons in magnetized iron are more uniformly alined than in unmagnetized iron.



I am not sure if it is the fictitious force, i.e. centrifugal force involved, or the angular momentum itself. I tend toward angular momentum. Macroscopically if you spin an object at 90 degrees to it linear velocity, it will resist any change to its linear line of travel that also affects it axis of rotation, to a greater degree than the same object with no spin. This works with bullets and is proposed for at least one of the private space flight rocket boosters (to replace the need for complex gyroscope and thruster control).

A gyroscope works in the same way. When spun up to sufficient angular momentum it will always attempt to maintain a constant spacial orientation relative to its axis of angular momentum. (I know that was said awkwardly.) you can move it freely in line with, or even at a 90 degree angle to, its axis of rotation. Any attempt to move it such that you change the orientation in space of its axis of rotation requires a greater effort. Its inertia is greater for any motion that involves a change in the orientation of it rotation axis.

It would seem that this would also hold true for any particle having mass and angular momentum.

Only in as much as the angular momentum affects a particle's magnetic moment would the EM state of the particle be connected to this effect. In either case I don't see this as an increase in mass, as much as an increase in inertia unrelated, at least directly unrelated, to mass. A gyroscope's mass is not increased by its angular momentum and yet its inertial resistance to change is definitely altered, relative to its axis of rotation.

Since in most everyday materials the atoms and particles are not general arranged uniformly relative to the individual angular momentums of their component parts, atomic and sub atomic, the material as a whole should exhibit an inertia that is nonspecific to direction.

However, could it be that the angular momentum of subatomic particles, are at least a contributor to the particle's inertia and mass?

I still see EM as a higher level emergent phenomena/force(s) and only indirectly involved in inertia and mass. EM mass appears to me to be a somewhat archaic concept.

Pleas forgive my rambling, this is really a off the cuff discussion of what comes to mind.

Some of your queeries are quite in depth... may I say for now... that the centrifugal force is a ficticious, false force. This applies to a stationary system though.

I will address what you said in more depth later MeOnly... thanks for your input.

If you assume an object with only a linear motion, moving in a straight line, while its velocity influences its inertial resistance to a change in motion, as in any force acting to accelerate or decelerate it, in this situation its inertia is changed when compared to the same object at rest. However, if its motion has no component other than moving in that straight line, the energy required to change its vector, say 90 degrees to its linear motion is unchanged. Its inertia is affected by its velocity only in the direction of motion.

Inertia is of course, the resistance of a change in velocity. Question is, since absolute rest cannot be changed, then what is a particle at rest, to one which resists the motion of an external force? Interestingly, a particle is constantly inertial, so long as it has a mass. Changes in force describe the inertial quantities very little - especially for particles which cannot be at rest anyway ;)


Its mass never changes, just its inertia relative to its existing motion.

I don't know whether to agree or not... all I can say is that mass is quantifiably different to an object moving relative to a stationary object. Objects with velocity greater than another object, present a mass which seems to have increased. I may direct you to the Oh-My-God particle?


This is a macrocosmic not quantum view. What is happening at the quantum level is not observable from this stand point.

Macrocosmic, or as I prefer, Macroscopic systems are not fundamental when you investigate the laws which govern geometrogenesis. Geometrical phenomena are in fact non-fundamental. Objects which exist in the geometrical world seem void when you consider the quantized world.


It gets very difficult when talking about QM effects and mechanics as they apply to the macrocosmic scale of ordinary matter and everyday experience. QM should reduce (for want of a better term) at macrocosmic scales to consistency with everyday experience and observation. I take that as meaning that at the quantum level uncertainty is a factor that is not present at the macroscopic scale. We cannot say what an individual electron is doing at any specific time or place. We can say what electrons are doing generally in a complex substance of everyday experience.

Agree. It is very difficult to reconcile the two different worlds. Uncertainty involves also the mass of an object to its radius; this bizarre quantum world is too afray with incremental observations which hold little accuracy at the smallest quantities.


The atoms and electrons in magnetized iron are more uniformly alined than in unmagnetized iron.

I didn't know this.


I am not sure if it is the fictitious force, i.e. centrifugal force involved, or the angular momentum itself. I tend toward angular momentum. Macroscopically if you spin an object at 90 degrees to it linear velocity, it will resist any change to its linear line of travel that also affects it axis of rotation, to a greater degree than the same object with no spin. This works with bullets and is proposed for at least one of the private space flight rocket boosters (to replace the need for complex gyroscope and thruster control).

i spoke about this previously, but I will say again :P The centrifugal force is ficticious.


A gyroscope works in the same way. When spun up to sufficient angular momentum it will always attempt to maintain a constant spacial orientation relative to its axis of angular momentum. (I know that was said awkwardly.) you can move it freely in line with, or even at a 90 degree angle to, its axis of rotation. Any attempt to move it such that you change the orientation in space of its axis of rotation requires a greater effort. Its inertia is greater for any motion that involves a change in the orientation of it rotation axis.

But is it ficticious? I will investigate it for myself :)


It would seem that this would also hold true for any particle having mass and angular momentum.

What does? :)


Only in as much as the angular momentum affects a particle's magnetic moment would the EM state of the particle be connected to this effect. In either case I don't see this as an increase in mass, as much as an increase in inertia unrelated, at least directly unrelated, to mass. A gyroscope's mass is not increased by its angular momentum and yet its inertial resistance to change is definitely altered, relative to its axis of rotation.

yes there is a relationship between angular momentum and the magnetic moment - I don't know if the two should naturally invite each other.


Since in most everyday materials the atoms and particles are not general arranged uniformly relative to the individual angular momentums of their component parts, atomic and sub atomic, the material as a whole should exhibit an inertia that is nonspecific to direction.

Yes. Magnetic moments are not a prerequisit of mass. Or atleast, the true definition of mass should not.


However, could it be that the angular momentum of subatomic particles, are at least a contributor to the particle's inertia and mass?

Maybe. In fact, possibly, but what about zero spin particles, as described by the Klein Gorden Equation... mind you, we haven't observed any spin zero particles, have we?


I still see EM as a higher level emergent phenomena/force(s) and only indirectly involved in inertia and mass. EM mass appears to me to be a somewhat archaic concept.

Emergent physics is still very cloudy for me. I still don't understand how something is emergent and not a mechanical phenomenon?


Pleas forgive my rambling, this is really a off the cuff discussion of what comes to mind.

Not at all.

I think inertia has some intrinsic relationship to the uncertainty principle. The fact particles are never actually at rest, begs the question what force is at work for particles with a mass. Of course, the uncertainty principle cannot be applied physically to particles which can never be at rest. The UP holds an interesting relationship, which I am mathematically trying to derive right now.

What are you talking about? A very delusional perspective, from one who questions my motives, when papers I assign are not read.Assign?


You seem to have a PhD in physicsYou managed to get that from this thread?


yet your attentive awareness seems to be lacking somewhat, considering you have got wrong quite a few things since the beginning of your rambling. The first comes to mind, where you think I took M \phi as an equation. Address me like an adult, and you shall be treated as such.You said (and I quote) "As always, the potential part of the equation M\phi always has the interesting dynamics.".

Your replies are evasive and vapid, when they aren't wrong. I commented your equations were basic and you replied "I don't know many 13 year olds who can talk about quantum mechanics, let alone know about potentials and whatnot.". Anyone familiar with this level of physics would know what I meant. You talk about Lie algebras, gauge theory, quantisation but all the equations you give are just ratios and roots. You haven't done anything remotely close to the level of mathematics used in this sort of theoretical physics. You say a 13 year old couldn't talk about quantum mechanics but you haven't done anything which would qualify as actual quantum mechanics. Nothing you'd said shows any understanding, a 13 year old could learn certain words and parrot certain things by reading Wikipedia. You've gotten numerous things wrong and then you'd have to back track as being 'too vague'.

I asked you to explain why \sqrt{GM} is a quantised charge, asking you to show the details, to give you an opportunity to show you do know this stuff. You just gave the evasive response to read the papers and said "I linked my sources. Follow them through, and you wouldn't be asking the questions you are.". I know what quantisation is, I know what charges are, I know how they arise, I'm wanting to see if you do.

For instance, you replied "Oscillations away from the ground state in the potential is the presence of a mass.". Why don't you give an indepth elaboration of that in your own words, so we can all see you understand it. I know precisely what is being referred to and I know the level of detail it's covered during lecture courses which also cover symmetry breakings, Lie algebra, gauge theory etc because I've sat them. You claim to know this stuff, put your maths where your mouth is.

You have all the hallmarks of someone who knows a tiny bit more than a complete layperson but who is trying to present it as so much more. Your last post is evidence of that :


I think inertia has some intrinsic relationship to the uncertainty principle. The fact particles are never actually at rest, begs the question what force is at work for particles with a mass. Of course, the uncertainty principle cannot be applied physically to particles which can never be at rest. The UP holds an interesting relationship, which I am mathematically trying to derive right now.This is complete nonsense and your last sentence illustrates your view of yourself does not square with reality.

Anyone familiar, on a working level, with the UP knows it can be applied to particles with mass and ones which aren't at rest. In fact the UP says a particle cannot be observed to be at rest else you'd know it's position and momentum perfectly.

If you're currently deriving something to do with the UP then let's see it. Show every bit of workings. Take your time to type it out properly because any errors, conceptual or quantitative will be taken as a sign you don't understand this stuff.

You clearly want to be taken seriously but you don't seem to want to stand up to any scrutiny. You're claiming to be familiar with concepts typically covered at Masters level in physics courses, yet you're also displaying a poor grasp of concepts taken as common knowledge on said courses and not a single bit of mathematics you've done is beyond the ability of a competent teenager to understand. You name drop Lie algebras but you haven't done anything with them, despite them being a critical component in quantisation. You talk about dynamical fields and potentials relating to mass but you haven't even given an expression with time in it. You couldn't even spell Poincare properly.

Of course your biggest mistake was picking the same sort of equations you've previously considered using previous accounts. You have a thing for inertial mass and trivial mathematics. How much longer you going to keep doing this Reiku? Do you think trying to hone your ability to spout BS on forums is going to serve you well in getting a job?

How intrusive you are, sir, with your superfluous idea's on the poster you so insidiously works on... You sir, are bored to high heaven... some of your posts, no matter who you think it is, does no justice to a scientific system, but remedial outbursts seems to be your forte, no?





You managed to get that from this thread?

Of course not. Your delusions seem to be more than forthcoming, than your fabrication concerning my contentions on the potential.


You said (and I quote) "As always, the potential part of the equation M\phi always has the interesting dynamics.".

and?


Your replies are evasive and vapid, when they aren't wrong. I commented your equations were basic and you replied "I don't know many 13 year olds who can talk about quantum mechanics, let alone know about potentials and whatnot.". Anyone familiar with this level of physics would know what I meant. You talk about Lie algebras, gauge theory, quantisation but all the equations you give are just ratios and roots. You haven't done anything remotely close to the level of mathematics used in this sort of theoretical physics. You say a 13 year old couldn't talk about quantum mechanics but you haven't done anything which would qualify as actual quantum mechanics. Nothing you'd said shows any understanding, a 13 year old could learn certain words and parrot certain things by reading Wikipedia. You've gotten numerous things wrong and then you'd have to back track as being 'too vague'.

As basic as the equations are, which I am readily to admit, your beliefs a 13 year old could understand them, are far from realistic ... I leave that to the audience.


I asked you to explain why \sqrt{GM} is a quantised charge, asking you to show the details, to give you an opportunity to show you do know this stuff. You just gave the evasive response to read the papers and said "I linked my sources. Follow them through, and you wouldn't be asking the questions you are.". I know what quantisation is, I know what charges are, I know how they arise, I'm wanting to see if you do.

I said, and how many times should one tell? The papers will tell you what you want to hear. You ask very basic questions, which an ape could understand, given the right directionality.


For instance, you replied "Oscillations away from the ground state in the potential is the presence of a mass.". Why don't you give an indepth elaboration of that in your own words, so we can all see you understand it. I know precisely what is being referred to and I know the level of detail it's covered during lecture courses which also cover symmetry breakings, Lie algebra, gauge theory etc because I've sat them. You claim to know this stuff, put your maths where your mouth is.

Elaborate what? Do you deny the mass term is not part of straying from the ground state, that oscillationary-physics are required to understand the origin of symmetry-breaking?


You have all the hallmarks of someone who knows a tiny bit more than a complete layperson but who is trying to present it as so much more. Your last post is evidence of that :

You know nothing of me, apart from 40-odd posts lol --- You are probably a better psychologist in theory than someone who can apply actual logic.


This is complete nonsense and your last sentence illustrates your view of yourself does not square with reality.

What is? The fact I said something at rest is not appliable to something at relativistic speeds, or the other part... god knows what???


Anyone familiar, on a working level, with the UP knows it can be applied to particles with mass and ones which aren't at rest. In fact the UP says a particle cannot be observed to be at rest else you'd know it's position and momentum perfectly.

How? Tell me how you can increase the speed of let's say a photon, when a photon's speed is constant? My teaching told me that a particles speed is uncertain, when you apply the logic it's speed is increased from the origin of the observable?


If you're currently deriving something to do with the UP then let's see it. Show every bit of workings. Take your time to type it out properly because any errors, conceptual or quantitative will be taken as a sign you don't understand this stuff.

I will show you it, once I derive it. As you should know, work is not finished, until the heart dictated it so.


You clearly want to be taken seriously but you don't seem to want to stand up to any scrutiny. You're claiming to be familiar with concepts typically covered at Masters level in physics courses, yet you're also displaying a poor grasp of concepts taken as common knowledge on said courses and not a single bit of mathematics you've done is beyond the ability of a competent teenager to understand. You name drop Lie algebras but you haven't done anything with them, despite them being a critical component in quantisation. You talk about dynamical fields and potentials relating to mass but you haven't even given an expression with time in it. You couldn't even spell Poincare properly.

Of course, I am well adversed in many area's of physics. It seems, as soon as someone says they know something, you tend to prove them wrong, or atleast try many occasions. Your errors in this thread are too vivid to discount.


Of course your biggest mistake was picking the same sort of equations you've previously considered using previous accounts. You have a thing for inertial mass and trivial mathematics. How much longer you going to keep doing this Reiku? Do you think trying to hone your ability to spout BS on forums is going to serve you well in getting a job?

Inertial mathematics, is not trivial. You have a very high ego... does anyone actually want to learn physics from you? Are you kind enough to be neutral enough, even, to let them understand the basics without being condescending?

Here are a few obvious observations about charge and gravity, that are less obvious than they should be.

First, in our universe, positive charge tends to associated with the highest mass particles (protons/nucleus). These higher mass particles, in turn, are responsible for the majority of mass/gravity of the universe.

Although positive electrons and negative protons do exist, our universe favors positive charge associating with the larger mass to get the proton. The question becomes, is mass/gravity closer to postive charge than to negative charge?

Equal and opposite, when it comes to charge, may also be true of their association to mass. This is based on the preponderance of hard data and not the hypothetical bias of random traditions.

Here are a few obvious observations about charge and gravity, that are less obvious than they should be.

First, in our universe, positive charge tends to associated with the highest mass particles (protons/nucleus) which, in turn, are responsible for the majority of mass/gravity of the universe.

Although positive electrons and negative protons do exist, our universe tends the favor the positive charge associating with the larger mass. The question becomes is mass/gravity closer to postive charge than it is to negative charge?

Equal and opposite, when it comes to charge, is also true of their opposite association to mass size.

Positive and negative charges can be understood from the dirac equation for fermions. In fact, particles can oscillate between charges, unless there is some mathematical factor which favours a charge over another... you may find this in a Yukawa Coupling. The math which follows this is very interesting, which will not allow a negative particle to sporadically change into a positive charge.

EM charge, as I understand my own theory, cannot, and this includes some kind of gravitational charge, to every particle in the universe. Like a DNA strand, the information from the most fundamental particle in the universe, will lead to a birth of new particles, the particles we are so attuned to measure. At one point in this universe, we should surely be able to measure, the first inertial strand of DNA... Not biological sense, but a fundamental sense. There should be a particle which gives birth to all fields... I do believe Motz calculated this and called this as a Uniton.

I will tell you all something, let me make it as brief as I can:

A) Particles are never at rest

B) There is an upper limit of velocity which does not apply to masses

C) Those which have a mass, are not particles which have the speed of light

D) Those which have a mass can only be logically attributed to the UP

The uncertainty principle will only allow understanding of it's inequality concerning particles which are at near rest. There is no point applying this principle to particles which have been favourably called Luxons. These speedy particles, cannot be applied to a certain point in space, because they experience no time. Relativity immediately admits that particles which travel at the speed of light, have no inertia... How can they if they are to permit the rulebook of the WEP?

Doesn't the proton participate in all force fields though its association with the postive charge and the proton mass? If we begin with this Uniton, and have our proton oscillating between postive and negative charge, the negative proton not able to exist at the same extreme energy as the proton. It becomes the electron for higher stabilty. This is prevented from going back to positive. I create as I learn.

Doesn't the proton participate in all force fields though its association with the postive charge and the proton mass? If we begin with this Uniton, and have our proton oscillating between postive and negative charge, the negative proton not able to exist at the same extreme energy as the proton. It becomes the electron for higher stabilty. This is prevented from going back to positive. I create as I learn.

you need to carefully measure the mass of a particle, before you speculate on the mass of the first universal particle. Charges are like a by-product of conservation. If you study a part of an equation like, let us say,

e(\psi^{\dagger} \psi A_0 + \psi^{\dagger} \alpha_i \psi A_i) there is an absoroption and a state of emmitance, which has all to do with probability and conservation. Conservation is a very delicate detail... it involves charge and mass... it involves our most primal particle... and for simplicity, let us assume it's name should be a Uniton :P

Of course, I am well adversed in many area's of physics.

"Adversed" is precisely the right word, it seems.

Why do you do this?

you need to carefully measure the mass of a particle, before you speculate on the mass of the first universal particle. Charges are like a by-product of conservation. If you study a part of an equation like, let us say,

e(\psi^{\dagger} \psi A_0 + \psi^{\dagger} \alpha_i \psi A_i) there is an absoroption and a state of emmitance, which has all to do with probability and conservation. Conservation is a very delicate detail... it involves charge and mass... it involves our most primal particle... and for simplicity, let us assume it's name should be a Uniton :PLooks like all you've done is expand out \gamma^{a}A_{a} = \beta^{0}A_{0}+\alpha_{i}A_{i} = \mathbb{I}A_{0}+\alpha_{i}A_{i} in part of the QED Lagrangian. You use a notation not commonly used but which you've used in previous accounts.

Conservation doesn't follow from that term. In fact that term follows from conservation requirements, you have it backwards! This is the sort of stuff I've been asking you to elaborate on and now you've unwittingly done it you've demonstrated you don't understand.

Reiku, don't you have anything else to do with your life? While browsing SciForums I came across a thread of yours from 3+ years ago and you were doing then as you do now. Back then you were claiming to be doing curvature and quantum field theory in school, but you weren't. If you'd actually begun a proper education then by now you'd actually be doing that stuff. Instead you're stuck still lying to people online, even after they've seen through your lies. I really don't understand what drives you, it must be some deep psychological issue that you have to lie so much, so often, so blatantly.

As for the longer post of your responding to my last one, I'll reply to it later, I have to go to work now.

Looks like all you've done is expand out \gamma^{a}A_{a} = \beta^{0}A_{0}+\alpha_{i}A_{i} = \mathbb{I}A_{0}+\alpha_{i}A_{i} in part of the QED Lagrangian. You use a notation not commonly used but which you've used in previous accounts.

Conservation doesn't follow from that term. In fact that term follows from conservation requirements, you have it backwards! This is the sort of stuff I've been asking you to elaborate on and now you've unwittingly done it you've demonstrated you don't understand.

Reiku, don't you have anything else to do with your life? While browsing SciForums I came across a thread of yours from 3+ years ago and you were doing then as you do now. Back then you were claiming to be doing curvature and quantum field theory in school, but you weren't. If you'd actually begun a proper education then by now you'd actually be doing that stuff. Instead you're stuck still lying to people online, even after they've seen through your lies. I really don't understand what drives you, it must be some deep psychological issue that you have to lie so much, so often, so blatantly.

As for the longer post of your responding to my last one, I'll reply to it later, I have to go to work now.

Do you really have a PhD????

You do realize, when you describe the decay of a particle (which the above equation can be read as) it conserves charge by the particle emitted and absorbed? How can you, as an honest scientist, say that conservation cannot be taken from it?

"Adversed" is precisely the right word, it seems.

Why do you do this?

Though I have studied QM in the past, it is forensic science I study.

I'd like to refine what I said about the UP and inertia. I re-read what I wrote before, and it was messy the way it was written. Resistence in a change of motion is the presence of inertia. Particles at the subatomic level are never at rest, they resist being at a single point in space over lengthly periods of time. If they resist at being at a certain point in space over lenghly periods of time, then this is actually the same as saying it is resisting a change in its motion. This is synonymous to the definition that inertia is a resistance to a change in motion. There are similarities. Of course, Motz shows in his paper that particle mass and the radius of a particle has an uncertainty relationship.

Do you really have a PhD????

You do realize, when you describe the decay of a particle (which the above equation can be read as) it conserves charge by the particle emitted and absorbed? How can you, as an honest scientist, say that conservation cannot be taken from it?No, because a particular process conserving something doesn't mean all processes will. Some, but not all, processes conserve lepton number. CP violation wasn't discovered until the 60s, until that point all observed processes conserved it.

Conservation of charge doesn't follow from the fact you write part of the Lagrangian in that manner. If you knew any field theory and gauge theory you'd know why that term arises in the Lagrangian and what it means. But you don't, you clutch at straws desperately trying to look like you understand this stuff. You failed.

Anyway, to your post....


How intrusive you are, sir, with your superfluous idea's on the poster you so insidiously works on... You sir, are bored to high heaven... some of your posts, no matter who you think it is, does no justice to a scientific system, but remedial outbursts seems to be your forte, no?I'm not here pretending to do science. I do science day in, day out. I don't need to come to forums and pretend.


Of course not. Your delusions seem to be more than forthcoming, than your fabrication concerning my contentions on the potential.So it's my fault you have poor communication skills?


As basic as the equations are, which I am readily to admit, your beliefs a 13 year old could understand them, are far from realistic ... I leave that to the audience.As a 13 year old I knew what a square root was, what powers were and basic algebra (ie the use of x to represent unknowns etc). Nothing you'd done is beyond that.


I said, and how many times should one tell? The papers will tell you what you want to hear. You ask very basic questions, which an ape could understand, given the right directionality.I can only assume you're being deliberately obtuse. I said I wasn't asking because I didn't know, I was asking because I don't think you know. Your "Look in the papers" is avoidance. I want you to explain it in your own words and you have again replied with avoidance.

How do you not understand that? I explicitly explained it. The conclusion is you do understand but you don't want to answer, lest you be caught making more mistakes.


Elaborate what? Do you deny the mass term is not part of straying from the ground state, that oscillationary-physics are required to understand the origin of symmetry-breaking?I know what you're trying to refer to. It also means I can spot mistakes in what you're saying. You're taking something from a specific example and making general statements. Can you tell me what it is? Go on, I'm giving you a chance.


You know nothing of me, apart from 40-odd posts lol --- You are probably a better psychologist in theory than someone who can apply actual logic.I've given you plenty of opportunities to step up Reiku, not for the first time. If you could you would, you clearly are desperate for people to think you understand this stuff. Why you don't realise you're so transparent I don't know.


What is? The fact I said something at rest is not appliable to something at relativistic speeds, or the other part... god knows what???That you think you're developing some new result about the UP. You didn't even know it applies to things with mass. Mass has nothing to do with the UP, it's about expectation values of commutations of particular operators unrelated to mass. You'd know this if you'd studied it rather than spewing out buzzwords you saw on Wikipedia.


How? Tell me how you can increase the speed of let's say a photon, when a photon's speed is constant?Where did I say that? I said it applies to objects with mass and objects which move.


My teaching told me that a particles speed is uncertain, when you apply the logic it's speed is increased from the origin of the observable?What logic is that? Your conclusion doesn't follow your assumption.


I will show you it, once I derive it. As you should know, work is not finished, until the heart dictated it so.Just like you supposedly got a paper accepted for publication something like 18 months ago and it never appeared? Just like you learnt GR and QFT in college 4 years ago? Just like you're going to one day be a PhD in physics? Just like (a-ib)(a+ib) = a^{2}+b^{2}-2abi?


Of course, I am well adversed in many area's of physics. Your grammar hasn't improved I see.


It seems, as soon as someone says they know something, you tend to prove them wrong, or atleast try many occasions.You were wrong about charges and Lie algebras, particles with mass under the UP, the origins of charge conservation, ..... need I go on?


Your errors in this thread are too vivid to discount.Too vivid to even produce it seems.


Inertial mathematics, is not trivial.You've given expressions like a=g, M_{i}a = Mg, \mu = \sqrt{GM}. Nothing beyond teenagers. You dress it up with fancy names and drop in buzzwords but none of the actual mathematics you've given is beyond teenagers. You might think they are complicated but its only because you have such a poor grasp yourself.


You have a very high ego... does anyone actually want to learn physics from you?I'm not saying I could do it at 13, I'm saying it's at a level of material covered by standard education courses in the Western World for people of that age. Square roots, ratios, powers. All stuff covered by kids, literally kids. If you had done quantum field theory, to the point of knowing about electroweak symmetry breaking in gauge theories, you'd be talking about the actual relevant stuff, not providing remedial mathematics with high level buzzwords. It is the calling card of someone who knows nothing but wants to appear like they know the details. People who really understand this stuff do not present their 'work' as you have, they do not evade direct questions, they do not make elementary mistakes and then avoid facing up to them. Last week I meet and discussed research with two maths professors (separately) and both of them repeatedly said things like "I don't know much about that, it isn't my area". I repeatedly said things like "This is probably a stupid question but how does...." and then ask something fairly simple with regards to their research areas. That is how honest discussion on research level material goes, not your evasive vapid nonsense. If you pressed Prometheus, Guest, Temur, Quarkhead, Cpt, Ben, or myself about our research areas we'd be able to dial the conservation to the appropriate level. We wouldn't need to be evasive (other than when talking about works in progress or confidential stuff), we know of what we speak.

Go on, I'll give you another chance. Why don't you elaborate on the thing I asked you to before. And why don't you give some details about your current new result related to the UP?

I think you just post things, sometimes, in a desperate attempt to say something anyway. I've seen it with some of your posts. If someone isn't wrong, you tend to say something anyway, and it's relevence is debatable.

I'll give you an example. I told you, admitted if you like the equations where basic. Yet you still refer to me as though I am dressing them up as something else. If you read the links, you would, as I am sure other people can see, why I posted what I did, and why I derived the inertial energy equation for the quantization method.

I have no current result on the UP. I have explained this as well. I see no reason answering the rest of your post.

Now, for the sake of a correction. It was said by the previous poster that:

''Mass has nothing to do with the UP, it's about expectation values of commutations of particular operators unrelated to mass. ''

This is actually false. There is a relationship between the uncertainty principle and the mass of a particle. This relationship is between mass and the radius, and you can find this in:

http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1971/motz.pdf

This relationship, is that when measurements are made to determine the mass of a particle, the more uncertain is the radius of curvature which it occupies. This relationship is given as:

\Delta R Mc \geq h

The smallest uncertainty exists at the planck length.

I think you just post things, sometimes, in a desperate attempt to say something anyway.Wow is that ever projection!


If someone isn't wrong, you tend to say something anyway,Yes, it's called informed discussion. Give it a try some time.


I'll give you an example. I told you, admitted if you like the equations where basic. Yet you still refer to me as though I am dressing them up as something else. If you read the links, you would, as I am sure other people can see, why I posted what I did, and why I derived the inertial energy equation for the quantization method.You haven't 'derived' anything. If you'd truly learnt this stuff you'd know what sort of level of detail is required to consider something 'derived'.


Now, for the sake of a correction. It was said by the previous poster that:

''Mass has nothing to do with the UP, it's about expectation values of commutations of particular operators unrelated to mass. ''

This is actually false. There is a relationship between the uncertainty principle and the mass of a particle. This relationship is between mass and the radius, and you can find this in:

http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1971/motz.pdfWhat that refers to is the combination of the UP with relativity. The UP is a general statement about the fact conjugate variables do not commute, such as x and p or E and t. If you then include relativity then you can relate E to M and things like curvature of space-time but whether or not the UP is applicable is not to do with mass. Particles with and without mass obey the UP.

If you'd actually done all of this stuff you'd know that quantisation is obtained by transforming classical Poisson brackets {a,b} to commutation relations \frac{1}{i\hbar}[a,b] where \{a,b\} = \frac{\partial a}{\partial q} \frac{\partial a}{\partial p}-\frac{\partial a}{\partial p} \frac{\partial a}{\partial q} where q and p are conjugate variables as defined by a Lagrangian or Hamiltonian and so {q,p} = 1*1 - 0*0 = 1 and thus [q,p] = i\hbar. At no point does mass need to be mentioned, it is purely about the symplectic structure of the coordinates which define the Hamiltonian.


I have no current result on the UP. I have explained this as well. I see no reason answering the rest of your post.What a surprise, you skip the bit where I challenge you to show you grasp something which requires more than just Google searches and reading Wikipedia. Funny that.

For example, that stuff on Poisson brackets is covered in quantum mechanics and classical dynamics courses, stuff taught in the years before doing quantum field theory. It took 2 minutes to type out and if you had known it it would have taken you that long to type it out and put me in my place but instead you made excuses. There, in 3 lines I managed more advanced stuff than you've done in 3 pages.

Though, you were technically wrong in the first place.

See, I have shown in direct contradiction to your statement there is no relationship with mass and the UP. Turns out the radius is complimentary in this sense, and so there is a relationship.

See, I have shown in direct contradiction to your statement there is no relationship with mass and the UP. Your original statement about mass and the UP wasn't that you could construct a mass related UP expression but that you said the following things :

"D) Those which have a mass can only be logically attributed to the UP

The uncertainty principle will only allow understanding of it's inequality concerning particles which are at near rest. There is no point applying this principle to particles which have been favourably called Luxons. These speedy particles, cannot be applied to a certain point in space, because they experience no time. Relativity immediately admits that particles which travel at the speed of light, have no inertia... How can they if they are to permit the rulebook of the WEP?"

and

"The fact I said something at rest is not appliable to something at relativistic speeds, or the other part... god knows what???"

You stated the UP was dependent upon the mass of the particle, that if something was moving quickly then the UP didn't apply and you related this to rest mass. That isn't true, the UP applies to electrons moving slowly, electrons moving quickly and to photons too. It was a famous thought experiment discussed by Bohr and Einstein to consider a timing device which emitted a photon in a precise way, as one attempted to convince the other the UP could be evaded (he was wrong).

The UP is about conjugate variables being simultaneously measured. If those are x and p rest mass has nothing to do with it. If they are E and t then you can start relating things to mass via relativity.


Turns out the radius is complimentary in this sense, and so there is a relationship.Motz doesn't actually prove they are conjugate. He doesn't even state a proper UP relation. The UP relation is generically of the form \Delta q \, \Delta p \geq k\hbar where k is some constant. It is a simple homework problem to derive this from [q,p] = i\hbar. Motz doesn't show that [R,m] \neq 0 or that \Delta R \, \Delta m \geq k\hbar, he just says \Delta R \geq \ldots. Motz might have been a very good astronomer but quantum gravity doesn't seem to have been his thing. For instance, his comments around Eqn(3) are dubious. He uses D instead of \Delta, which is bad notation because \Delta = D^{2} where D is the Dirac operator and then goes on to say that R is the square root of the space-time interval. That is an incorrect thing to say, he means either the curvature of space-time at a location or he means a coefficient or component of the space-time interval (which turns out to be the same once you do the appropriate differential geometry). His reference 7 is a paper he wrote almost 2 decades previous.

You search Google for "quantised gravitational charge" and this thread is the number one hit! The 6th hit is this thread (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=21938.0) where the two posters are both people banned from this forum for posting crap, Vern and, surprise surprise, Reiku's account, your account.

Relating a length scale to a mass scale is a trivial matter in relativity, it follows from the particular way non-dimensional quantities are produced. Mass goes like inverse length so small lengths mean bigger masses. This is why the Planck length is so small but the Planck mass so large. If you have an uncertainty in a mass then you have an uncertainty in its associated length scale. Furthermore you can associate the mass with curvature in space-time and thus an uncertainty in one is related to an uncertainty in the other. This is not surprising but it doesn't mean that someone saying that has manifestly demonstrated the conjugate nature of particular variables.

I shouldn't be having to walk you through this if you knew about this. Messing around with the UP, knowing how to derive it, knowing about conjugate variables. These are all stuff done in 1st courses in QM yet you seem unfamiliar with them while simultaneously claiming to know gauge theory.

Why don't you step up and elaborate on the things I asked you? If I'm so wrong and you're so right it shouldn't be difficult. I type my posts off the top of my head, I don't need to go look things up. If you're dabbling with deriving new results for the UP you should have it all at the front of your mind. Instead whenever someone scratches the surface you fail to stand up to it. You make a statement like the UP not applying to fast particles, I correct you and we go down this road where I have to explain to you, multiple times, how the derivation of the UP isn't to do with mass but just conjugate variables. You then view this as me saying there's no way uncertainty can arise in mass, when I explicitly state energy can be a variable in the UP and it relates to mass. Then I have to explain to you conjugate variables.

x and p don't commute, regardless of their expected values, because they are operators. The operators are like matrices, their commutation relations are independent of what states they eventually are applied to. The states define whether or not a particle is moving or has some particular spin alignment or energy, which doesn't have any impact on the relationship between operators. This is QM 101. But Reiku, you've previously shown you don't grasp the notion of operators and elements in Hilbert spaces. It took many corrections to get you to realise a wavefunction doesn't generically obey \psi^{\dag}\psi = 1, the normalisation condition is different.

How many more posts, how many more accounts, how many more years are you going to keep doing this?

In fact, on further reflection Motz next statement after Eqn 3 is categorically wrong. He says that you obtain i\gamma^{a}\nabla_{a}R = 1 by factorising D\psi(x) = \frac{\hbar^{2}}{R^{2}}\psi(x). I can see how someone might make that mistake.

Using D = \hbar^{2}\Delta and the Clifford algebra properties of the Dirac matrices we can take the 'square root' of this operator to get \hbar^{2}\Delta = (i\hbar \gamma^{a}\nabla_{a}) (i\hbar \gamma^{b}\nabla_{b}) = (i\hbar \gamma^{b}\nabla_{b})^{2}.

Thus you could make the mistaken step of saying that (i\hbar \gamma^{b}\nabla_{b})^{2}\psi = \left(\frac{\hbar}{R}\right)^{2}\psi(x) implies i\gamma^{b}\nabla_{b} = \frac{1}{R} and therefore i \gamma^{b}\nabla_{b}R = 1. Utterly wrong. Firstly i\gamma^{b}\nabla_{b} is an operator, it has to be applied to something to really make sense, while \frac{1}{R} is just a function (or even a constant!). The equation (i\hbar \gamma^{b}\nabla_{b})^{2}\psi = \left(\frac{\hbar}{R}\right)^{2}\psi(x) constrains the form of \psi to be a particular form. Saying i\gamma^{b}\nabla_{b} = \frac{1}{R} here is literally like saying \frac{d}{dx} = \frac{1}{5}. Furthermore i\gamma^{b}\nabla_{b} = \frac{1}{R} doesn't rearrange to give i\gamma^{b}\nabla_{b}R = 1, it's like saying \frac{d5}{dx} = 1 after saying \frac{d}{dx} = \frac{1}{5}.

At best he's been so poor with his explanations he's coming across as wrong and at worst he's just plain wrong. That might explain why his reference is to his own work from 15 years ago, no one else developed it.

Your original statement about mass and the UP wasn't that you could construct a mass related UP expression but that you said the following things :

"D) Those which have a mass can only be logically attributed to the UP

The uncertainty principle will only allow understanding of it's inequality concerning particles which are at near rest. There is no point applying this principle to particles which have been favourably called Luxons. These speedy particles, cannot be applied to a certain point in space, because they experience no time. Relativity immediately admits that particles which travel at the speed of light, have no inertia... How can they if they are to permit the rulebook of the WEP?"

and

"The fact I said something at rest is not appliable to something at relativistic speeds, or the other part... god knows what???"

You stated the UP was dependent upon the mass of the particle, that if something was moving quickly then the UP didn't apply and you related this to rest mass. That isn't true, the UP applies to electrons moving slowly, electrons moving quickly and to photons too.

I have work to go to, so I cannot answer all of this, this morning - but if you can't technically slow down a photon, how can you locally define it sitting in a spacetime region over a lengthly time, as you would need to make it's trajectory uncertain?

In fact, on further reflection Motz next statement after Eqn 3 is categorically wrong. He says that you obtain i\gamma^{a}\nabla_{a}R = 1 by factorising D\psi(x) = \frac{\hbar^{2}}{R^{2}}\psi(x). I can see how someone might make that mistake.

Using D = \hbar^{2}\Delta and the Clifford algebra properties of the Dirac matrices we can take the 'square root' of this operator to get \hbar^{2}\Delta = (i\hbar \gamma^{a}\nabla_{a}) (i\hbar \gamma^{b}\nabla_{b}) = (i\hbar \gamma^{b}\nabla_{b})^{2}.

Thus you could make the mistaken step of saying that (i\hbar \gamma^{b}\nabla_{b})^{2}\psi = \left(\frac{\hbar}{R}\right)^{2}\psi(x) implies i\gamma^{b}\nabla_{b} = \frac{1}{R} and therefore i \gamma^{b}\nabla_{b}R = 1. Utterly wrong. Firstly i\gamma^{b}\nabla_{b} is an operator, it has to be applied to something to really make sense, while \frac{1}{R} is just a function (or even a constant!). The equation (i\hbar \gamma^{b}\nabla_{b})^{2}\psi = \left(\frac{\hbar}{R}\right)^{2}\psi(x) constrains the form of \psi to be a particular form. Saying i\gamma^{b}\nabla_{b} = \frac{1}{R} here is literally like saying \frac{d}{dx} = \frac{1}{5}. Furthermore i\gamma^{b}\nabla_{b} = \frac{1}{R} doesn't rearrange to give i\gamma^{b}\nabla_{b}R = 1, it's like saying \frac{d5}{dx} = 1 after saying \frac{d}{dx} = \frac{1}{5}.

At best he's been so poor with his explanations he's coming across as wrong and at worst he's just plain wrong. That might explain why his reference is to his own work from 15 years ago, no one else developed it.

I agree with this. It would seem Motz has made a mathematical error here. However this is only one part of his work. I need to Look again, but I do believe the quantization method which makes \hbar c = GM^2 is true when you take his method, thus he retrieves the square of the form GM, I assume quickly as \sqrt{\frac{\hbar c}{M}} = \sqrt{GM}. I will get his work to display. I'll get to the pervious post soon.

You stated the UP was dependent upon the mass of the particle, that if something was moving quickly then the UP didn't apply and you related this to rest mass. That isn't true, the UP applies to electrons moving slowly, electrons moving quickly and to photons too. It was a famous thought experiment discussed by Bohr and Einstein to consider a timing device which emitted a photon in a precise way, as one attempted to convince the other the UP could be evaded (he was wrong).


Hmmm... Are we referring to the Einstein-Bohr debates, where Bohr was asked to justify his relationship stating \Delta E \Delta t \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}? Hmmm... let us go by this another way then.

How does relativity make sense, if you apply a photon to the UP? As far as I understand relativity, photons follow null geodesics, so they cannot even be moving in space. Plus, the fact the speed of a photon never slows down, then how can you measure the uncertainty in position, for the uncertainty can only remain constant, if there is any.

He uses D instead of \Delta, which is bad notation because \Delta = D^{2} where D is the Dirac operator and then goes on to say that R is the square root of the space-time interval. That is an incorrect thing to say, he means either the curvature of space-time at a location or he means a coefficient or component of the space-time interval (which turns out to be the same once you do the appropriate differential geometry). His reference 7 is a paper he wrote almost 2 decades previous.

Actually, R is the radius of curvature, so that is no indifferent to saying ''curvature of space-time at a location'' - in this sense, Motz defined himself.

Motz doesn't actually prove they are conjugate. He doesn't even state a proper UP relation. The UP relation is generically of the form \Delta q \, \Delta p \geq k\hbar where k is some constant. It is a simple homework problem to derive this from [q,p] = i\hbar. Motz doesn't show that [R,m] \neq 0 or that \Delta R \, \Delta m \geq k\hbar, he just says \Delta R \geq \ldots.

There must be a reason he says it. It should be investigated to find some credible source.

I have work to go to, so I cannot answer all of this, this morning - but if you can't technically slow down a photon, how can you locally define it sitting in a spacetime region over a lengthly time, as you would need to make it's trajectory uncertain?You can still consider the space-time curvature it produces at any given moment. Photons have energy and momentum. These contribute to the energy-momentum tensor. By the Einstein field equations this contributes to space-time warping. The particle doesn't need to stop to induce such things.

Similarly you don't need to stop a photon to ask "What is its energy and/or momentum?", they are well defined quantities in relativity. To measure them you don't need to stop the photon, that's what the Bohr/Einstein thought experiment I mentioned talked about. A photon is emitted out of a box whose window/door is controlled by a timer. By weighing the box and looking at the timer Einstein initially claimed you could calculate the energy of the photon and the time it was emitted, contradicting the UP since E and t are conjugate. Bohr pointed out the emission causes a recoil due to momentum conservation which induces an uncertainty in the time due to motion, thus ensuring the UP is still valid.

As previously said, you are further showing you don't understand what the UP is and what it's actually about. Heck, you don't even seem to understand how some things in physics can be measured! This is further reenforced by a later post of yours :


How does relativity make sense, if you apply a photon to the UP? As far as I understand relativity, photons follow null geodesics, so they cannot even be moving in space. Plus, the fact the speed of a photon never slows down, then how can you measure the uncertainty in position, for the uncertainty can only remain constant, if there is any.Firstly, you ask that question about x and p yet you just stated a different UP relation. Even if your question held merit, which it doesn't, it wouldn't negate the fact E and t can form an UP relation.

Secondly, the reason your question is flawed is because x doesn't mean "The particle is stopped and you want to know where it is" but "At that moment in time the particle was there.". 'At rest' is a frame dependent concept anyway, so a particle which is at rest in one frame is moving in another yet the UP applies in each.

For example, the classic example is to measure the position and momentum of a moving electron. To 'detect' an electron you bound a photon off it and detect the photon using some photographic film or device. The problem is that the accuracy of your determination of the position is only up to 1/2 the wavelength of the photon you used. So by making the wavelength smaller you get a better position reading but in doing that you're hitting the electron with a larger amount of momentum so you're less able to measure the momentum of the electron accurately. A better reading in one makes the reading in the other worse and no matter what you do there's a limit to the uncertainty, relating to \hbar. Similar scattering principles apply to the photon, it's just less convenient to work with.

These are standard things covered in QM courses. When the UP is explained in physics books they give examples of how it's tested. The mathematical formalism in terms of operator expectation values for wavefunctions also nullifies your complaints. If you knew the details you'd not be asking what you're asking. You don't know and you know you don't know but for some reason you pretend to know and try to ask questions in an attempt to say "Ah ha! Told you I know!" but it always blows up in your face.

Anyway, returning to the previous post....


I agree with this.I have absolutely no reason to think you understood what I said. You were only just putting forth Motz as a justification for your claims and saying I'm wrong and now you've turned around. If you understand this stuff and you read the paper why didn't you spot this yourself? You complained I didn't read the papers you 'assigned' but now it seems either you haven't read them or you haven't understood them.


I need to Look again, but I do believe the quantization method which makes \hbar c = GM^2 is true when you take his method, thus he retrieves the square of the form GMGiven c, G and \hbar you can construct the unique quantity with units of mass, ie the Planck mass. That isn't anything new or something he did first.

Furthermore, you repeatedly said \sqrt{GM} but Motz actually says \sqrt{G}M, which is different. He gets that from taking the square root of the numerator of the Newtonian gravity force. This completely invalidates your initial post, where you repeatedly reformulated the expression \sqrt{GM}, not \sqrt{G}M.

Furthermore, the whole \sqrt{G}M is referring to a different M because he uses that factorisation in the generic Newtonian expression, not a specific case for the Planck mass. He uses M for generic mass and m for Planck mass so if the quantisation were true then M is some integer multiple of m.


Actually, R is the radius of curvature, so that is no indifferent to saying ''curvature of space-time at a location'' - in this sense, Motz defined himself.I'm well aware what R is in this context. I'm more than a little familiar with space-time curvature in quantum field theoretic constructs. However, Motz didn't say that about R. He did say that the space-time interval determines the geometry and thus the curvature but Motz's specific phrase is "R must be the square root of the space-time interval". That is false. R can be the square root of a coefficient in the space-time interval, as is the case in compactifications or many cosmology models but it is not the square root of the space-time interval.

Again, you show you don't understand what is being said, by Motz or myself, you try to correct me but all you do is jam your foot in your mouth. This isn't some obscure mathematical result, it's basic meaning of terms, and despite you professing you understand it you don't show it.


There must be a reason he says it. It should be investigated to find some credible source.Knock yourself out, you're the one plugging him.

My math skills were better years ago. Now I am more into conceptual modelling. This type of modelling makes sure the premises used by the math make logical sense, since it is possible to use math as a medium for science art. Math art may be why we can have so many alternative, that make sense ,even though reality may not contain that much variety; art and science looking alike.

The most stable particle that can participate in all four forces of nature is the proton. It can participate in gravity, the strong and weak nuclear force, and the EM force all at the same time. This means that the proton could theoretically participate in a unified force since it has it fingers in all pies. The electron is more limited in his force participation. This suggests the proton formed from the unified force, with electrons coming a little later as force became better differentiated. Instead of pairs, this data suggests one after the other.

What this brings to the table is, could the formation of protons from the unified force create enough positive charge repulsion to overcome the gravitational attraction, allowing the universe to expand?

Knock yourself out, you're the one plugging him.

I can't find one source. I even went as deep as schwartszchild radius relations, I could not figure out how motz derives his relationship.

Then might I suggest you be a little less fervent in your "Read the papers I've linked to!" and "I'm right, you're wrong, this paper says so!". Not only did the paper not say so, what it does say is a mixture of unjustified, incorrect and undeveloped.

If you understood what you claim to then you'd have seen that. Instead you played buzzword bingo and fell on your face. Might as well start a new BS thread there Reiku, this one is done.

Then might I suggest you be a little less fervent in your "Read the papers I've linked to!" and "I'm right, you're wrong, this paper says so!". Not only did the paper not say so, what it does say is a mixture of unjustified, incorrect and undeveloped.

I know, and you know, fine well, that if you read the paper for the gravitational charge (the square of GM) then you know and I know you would not have asked me what you did. Secondly, I never boasted being right. You have boasted about people being wrong.

You are right though. The actual expression is \sqrt{G}M. I blame the bad text the paper is written in. I still can't distinguish this form, and the one I first mentioned just by reading the expression on the paper.

I know, and you know, fine well, that if you read the paper for the gravitational charge (the square of GM) then you know and I know you would not have asked me what you did.You still don't get it. I'm not questioning whether a paper says something or a professor understands this stuff, I'm questioning whether you understand it. For instance, I know precisely what you're referring to when you mention things about mass, oscillations and potentials but I don't believe you do. My questions were an attempt to see if you did. If you really did then you should have had no problem engaging me in discussion on them. Personally I think that whole area is quite interesting and a discussion with someone knowledgeable on the subject would be enjoyable. But instead you made excuses and said for me to go read something, utterly missing the point.


Secondly, I never boasted being right. You have boasted about people being wrong.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2799070&postcount=55
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2798154&postcount=45
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2799070&postcount=56
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2797984&postcount=36

Need I provide more?


I still can't distinguish this form, and the one I first mentioned just by reading the expression on the paper.Then you either didn't read Motz's paper or your mathematical abilities are so poor you can't understand equations which are taught to 16 year olds in school. On page 3 of his paper he factorises the numerator in the Newtonian gravity expression, F = \frac{\sqrt{G}M \, \sqrt{G}M}{r^{2}}. It couldn't possibly be \sqrt{GM}, it wouldn't give you the Newtonian gravity formula.

This is the problem with your way of BS'ing. You have to spin so much nonsense you get caught up easily. You spew too much nonsense, profess to understand too many things and when you inevitably have to make excuses for obvious mistakes you've made you end up contradicting yourself further. Surely you've learnt that by now, you've had it happen to you so many times. Any rational person* would realise to wind their BS in a little, to make the lies less broad and general but you seem to increase the breadth of your lies as the years pass.

* a rational person wouldn't be the compulsive liar you are.

You do sure get worked up. It's quite amusing.

You mistake elaboration for frustration. I always have a tendency to type lengthy posts, be it responding to someone like rpenner or someone like you. And your attempt to avoid facing up to your mistakes, your glaring and obvious mistakes, doesn't do you any favours.

It's obvious to anyone who understands basic algebra that the paper is saying \sqrt{G}\,M and not \sqrt{GM}. Equations don't make sense if you use the latter and not the former, yet your excuse is you couldn't tell from the typographic layout. It's a laughable excuse. That isn't me being frustrated or worked up (I've only been awake about 10 minutes, I'm barely functional), it's a simple statement of fact. If you think your excuse is not laughably transparent then you're naive.

Are you going to admit your excuse doesn't work? Or are you going to continue with the self denial?

You mistake elaboration for frustration. I always have a tendency to type lengthy posts, be it responding to someone like rpenner or someone like you. And your attempt to avoid facing up to your mistakes, your glaring and obvious mistakes, doesn't do you any favours.

It's obvious to anyone who understands basic algebra that the paper is saying \sqrt{G}\,M and not \sqrt{GM}. Equations don't make sense if you use the latter and not the former, yet your excuse is you couldn't tell from the typographic layout. It's a laughable excuse. That isn't me being frustrated or worked up (I've only been awake about 10 minutes, I'm barely functional), it's a simple statement of fact. If you think your excuse is not laughably transparent then you're naive.

Are you going to admit your excuse doesn't work? Or are you going to continue with the self denial?

Listen to yourself.

I know what \sqrt{G}\,M - I never said I didn't understand this. I said you were right.

I must have bad eyesight though, because the paper this is extracted from does not read any simpler even after it is pointed out. As I said, I blame the bad text it is written in.