Gravity & Strong Force

[webolife]

Bengt... I am interested in your phrase, "long strings like to organize"... how do they "like" to do this? Do they have a secret handshake? Net attraction toward each other? Is it like speed dating, where they quickly try to connect but only after several encounters make a successful match? What constitutes a match? What causes "gravitation"?? We see that despite the cliche that "opposites attract", at a fundamental level, "like likes like" as Feynman likes to say. What elementary physical principle is at work to "organize" the universe, at any hierarchical level? Aka thread title.

[sjw40364]

phyll, "Aether" is even more ambiguous...If you are suggesting that an aether is a field of "energy", then i present the same argument.
Energy is contained within matter, not floating around as a field or blob. energy is not a substance.

Aether, if it exists, is matter/particles, and they contain energy.

If your aether is energy as a field, then that is a subject for metaphysics, quantum theory, etc...


*********************

Bengt, I am suggesting that energy strings held in confinement, locked in place, unable to move, show their energy in form of mass; m=E/c^2.

that may be, but i doubt it.... mass is a quality of matter , is it not? why does matter require it's energy to be in the form of strings? And what confines them to begin with??!!! This would mean that energy transmission would require movement of "strings", between masses.... Is that what you are implying?...

But strings' frequency define the mass/matter that they will produce?
Dissimilar matter, would exchange energy that they did not formally possess??!!

This equation, m=E/c^2 , does not reflect reality. In any what way that it appears to is an illusion, or creates an illusion for some observers.

so, explain what the relationship is of c to mass, mechanically?

could there be any other speed that would work?

could there be an electro-physical constant, unrelated to speed?

What if energy travels at >c and matter is energy traveling at <c and photons are neither since they travel at c the demarcation line? Kind of an in between state.

[Bengt Nyman]

Bengt... I am interested in your phrase, "long strings like to organize"... how do they "like" to do this?

Please do not take my statements out of context ! I said:
"P.S. I see your fascination for the DNA helix. Maybe it is a picture of how long strings like to organize themselves into little compact packages, like particles."

[Bengt Nyman]

This equation, m=E/c^2
So, explain what the relationship is of c to mass, mechanically ?

In the famous equation E=mc^2 the relationship is between E and m, not c.
C is just a constant. It happens to be the speed of light. Since c is a constant, c^2 is also a constant.
It is unusual to use a constant in form of a square of something. Therefore you might as well say that E=km
In other words the energy latent in a stationary body is proportional to its mass.
How can you extract some of this energy ? By fission. In a nuclear reactor or in a nuclear bomb.
I think that E=mc^2 is pretty well proven to be accurate. I wish I could say the same for more relativistic math involving a moving mass, like:
m1=m2/[(1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)].
The problem I have with mixing in v, the velocity of the mass, is: velocity in relationship to what ?

[mjv1121]

Bengt, Sparky,

I think that E=mc^2 is pretty well proven to be accurate.

E=mc^2 has not been proven accurate by a long stretch of the imagination. The "energy" released by nuclear processes is well below what is predicted by e=mc^2. e=mc^2 is a fairy story from a childish incompetent theory that is utterly unproven by any possible metric, other than the religious belief of its followers and the criminal use of society's resources to further the prestige and wealth of dishonest charlatans.

Michael

[Sparky]

In question:

This equation, m=E/c^2
So, explain what the relationship is of c to mass, mechanically ?

Bengt,

the relationship is between E and m, not c.

I think that E=mc^2 is pretty well proven to be accurate.

but c is in the equation....why?///,...constant or not, there is a relationship.
Using c only brings in photons to be considered.... how does c relate to the strong force bond that needs to be broken?

Fission is not a very efficient process. And the equation suggests that all of a mass can be converted to energy, but that never happens. There are particles produced that convey energy, but they themselves are not converted to energy.

Accurate? In what sense? That an amount of energy can be extracted from a quantity of mass?...OR a precise amount of energy can be converted from a quantity of mass? ...I think it is the former. And that is not accuracy.

All in all, e=mc2 is like saying an apple orchard, and money, will produce cider...

[webolife]

Bengt,
I was just being "cute" in my line of questioning about your socializing strings... but all of my punny questions are actually serious. How do strings assemble in any orderly fashion, and why would they do this... is there an intrinsic dynamic toward organization in opposition to the rule of entropy?

[Sparky]

If photons, light, can exert a force, then do we experience more gravity effect because of this, during the daylight hours?

[Bengt Nyman]

Bengt,
How do strings assemble in any orderly fashion?

If strings are electrically neutral but become dipoles when in each others company, the nesting of strings into particles is to be expected.
Take a bipolar magnet. It is equally magnetic north and south. The magnetic sum is zero but the north and the south are separated. Place a number of them apart on the bottom of a shoe box. Put the lid on. Shake the box.
If my theory of dipole gravity is wrong there should be a 50% chance that when you open the box the magnets would come flying out of the box trying to get away from each other. But they never do. They form a particle, or a small planet, 100% of the time.

[Bengt Nyman]

If photons, light, can exert a force, then do we experience more gravity effect because of this, during the daylight hours?

You tell me. Place your bathroom mirror on the ground. put a chair on it. Sit on the chair holding a dark umbrella over your head. Are you feeling lighter ,,, or just silly ?

[Oracle_911]

E=mc^2 it is for energy for moving electrons (in accelerators), nothing more.

[jacmac]

Webolife said:

We see that despite the cliche that "opposites attract", at a fundamental level, "like likes like" as Feynman likes to say.

An idea fundamental to the Electric Universe as found at this web site is that matter is "created" by the massive energies at work when Birkeland currents Z pinch in on themselves.

Could it be that there is no "strong force".

Wilhelm Weber( 1804-1891) postulated that there is a critical length below which the force of repulsion between two electrical particles is changed to attraction, and vice versa...

Could it be that the Z pinching currents drive protons closer than the weber critical distance and once there they like it and stay.

And because they like it(protons close together) a great effort would be needed to separate them from each other without a great force being necessary to hold them together.

Was Weber right ?

Could it be that these Z pinches are wild and crazy events that create all manner of combinations of stuff that we call the periodic table.

Jack

[Sparky]

If photons, light, can exert a force, then do we experience more gravity effect because of this, during the daylight hours?

You tell me. Place your bathroom mirror on the ground. put a chair on it. Sit on the chair holding a dark umbrella over your head. Are you feeling lighter ,,, or just silly ?

I would feel silly if i seriously suggested such an ill conceived experiment.
Outside, under full sunlight, if there was a bombardment/gravity effect from light photons, an umbrella's larger exposed surface area would feel it more than i would. and how I "felt" would have nothing to do with conclusion from data derived from any experiment.

[Bengt Nyman]

Wilhelm Weber( 1804-1891) postulated that there is a critical length below which the force of repulsion between two electrical particles is changed to attraction, and vice versa ... Jack

His observation is right. But he did not know enough about quarks at the time to understand why.
Positively charged protons consist of up quarks and down quarks. Because of the overall positive charge, protons normally repel each other. However, if you force them very close together and put the down quark in proton 1 next to an up quark in proton 2 the overall net composite force changes to attraction. It has to do with the relative distances between the attracting versus the repelling quarks. It's a bistable arrangement. If you now pry the protons apart to a specific distance the net composite attractive force goes to zero and then reverses back to a repelling force, and the protons fly apart. See http://www.dipole.se

[Bengt Nyman]

[quote="Sparky"][/quote]
There are two cases. The difference is with and without the mirror. You hold the umbrella in both cases.
Case 1 without mirror: Everything feels normal.
Case 2 with mirror: You feel lighter and so does the umbrella.