Thank you, Jouni.
Well, Yes Your critic is pretty much approved and accepted. You just listed the plain facts.
Ie. the Neutron mass stuff, I've note my self it's quite poorely written point and even has a mistake in it. And the language. Well What can I do?
Get a proof reader.
My English is good, if you like I can fix the spelling and grammar. I will do it free for you, in my spare time.
The difficulty of producing such a paper is to hold it enough short to be able to hold the "big picture" clear. So I have avoided to go too deep in to the details in the paper. But You would be amazed the amount of number-cracking I have made to produce this paper. The Biggest excel file is 10 Mb; just data no fancy graphics.
I appreciate the effort you have gone too.
And I cannot be too critical. I never made such a paper myself. Just giving you a reader's view.
The key-proof of the whole Idea is to show that planets rotates and orbits without gravity or because "it's allways been so" I found clear proof about drag, it's shown in Figure 20. this means the Orbital rotation can't have lasted anywhere near 4.5 x10^9 Years.
I intuitively agree with the last part of your statement, but what if it is because of a combination of gravity and EM? Or some other reason?
I mean, gravity might just not be as we thought, but an apple falling on our head tells us that gravity is real. Doesn't it?
I also found the signs of the "pump" which pushes the Earth forward. Figure 13 is from Feynman lectures, and the corresponding stuff I analysed in Thermosphere is best shown in Figure 19.
Sounds so much better than rubber mat style curved space/time fabric (with diagrams that show secondary bodies should actually spiral/fall to somewhere south of the primary body's south pole) to me. But I need to study more, before I can comment.
But your post points out the Density and volume. This is the main message of my paper. After I found out my self NOT-understanding what I had wrote week before, I realized that the most difficult thing to understand here is the Massless Force and Energy.
Again, the definition of mass implies it is a physical thing. To say something has no mass is the same as saying it is not a thing.
For example, velocity is not mass. But without a mass, you don't have a thing to have velocity. Does that make sense?
I now see it happens a lot in Physics. People are redefining the meanings of words in order to make their theories works. This adds confusion to the already big pile of misunderstandings.
Take "fields", for another example. They are not things anymore, in Physics. Just potential, or force, or acceleration. But if fields are not things, how will the farmers plant their crops? Since fields are not things anymore, to physicists, they can't do much with them, except speculate, and talk about them a lot.
Density is Energy density! This density propably can't be any higher than that of single Neutron. But this "Energy" must be defined without mass. So it's not the same Energy we know; And thus this density is not even "Energy density"
I named it as a "strength".
"Charge" is already
defined as mass, as per Coulomb.
If we study charge, we find that it has the same fundamental dimensions as mass. The statcoulomb has dimensions of M ^(1/2) L^(3/2) T -1. This gives the total charge of two particles the cgs dimension ML^3/T^2 . But mass has the dimensions L^3 /T^2, which makes the total charge M^2. So we can treat Coulomb’s charges just like Newton’s masses.
We write the equation like this:
F = k(DV)(dv)/r^2
I quote that from Mathis for two reasons. It might help you, or you might comment, and help me understand better.
If you don't notice any difficulty with the terminology, then my paper has not succeed at all; "Strength density?" Ok?
I notice difficulties with terminology all the time in Physics.
That's why I be such a stickler about keeping the original definitions of words.
If mass is not mass, or fields don't actually consist of anything, or particles are virtual, then the theory has to be wrong, that the meanings of words had to be redefined to fit it.
Instead of saying mass doesn't exist, why not say, mass is energy density (if that is what you propose it actually is).
(Then straight away people will think of Einstein, who already said that all matter is energy, which equates mass to matter. Matter exists in your theory, does it?)
Or maybe "momentum density?" I am open to any name.
Just not the name "mass"?
But the most important thing to start with, is to define the things we are about to trying to talk.
The current definition of mass is that it is a property of matter. Not a well understood property, but nevertheless, without mass, matter is nothing. Or pure energy (if there is any such thing as pure energy - I suspect all energy is carried, or contained, by some matter).
We stand in front of the Problem which Wittgenstein put well in words; "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
But the bridle has come off the tongues of men.
So my paper has such a serious problems by definition. But these are problems I can't solve alone. Language building needs a forced dialogue where the meanings are simply agreed.
I studied scripture before I came to physics, and see the same thing happened in religion. Testaments are now covenants, and walking in the law now means driving to church. Jesus became God so the Father in heaven can now safely be ignored. Accusing has become reproof.
To understand the word, I read it with the old Oxford dictionary at hand. Turns out the scripture is not saying what men say it says. Not even close. I am now attempting to do the same with Physics. That is, unwind the confusion created by men who redefine the fundamental words needed to describe a theory. I am already confident I will crack physics, as I did God's law in the Bible. Give me a few years
I am pretty ready to enter any debate on the issue. And I can use any preferred words for this debate
Isn't it better to use the standard in use words which everyone understands, with the meaning that everyone holds?
Too much physics is hard to understand, and you of all people should know, when you really delve into it to try and understand, you often find out they have a different meaning for some term than what is standard, and that is their excuse. And the theory stands on a non standard definition.
To give some example; What is ie. Electric current if it's defined without a mass?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampere We simply don't have any defintion for that. To communicate this paper forward is not only spelling issue. But the "funny thing" is that all the needed stuff is actually allready well known! Ie. the second moment of Area (Jäyhyysmomentti in Finnish...)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_moment_of_area describes the properties of matter much better than any "mass". The unit of it is m^4
Electric current is real photons, with real mass, and a radius.
Man made electricity is always pushing a stream of electrons, and our intruments measure the electrons, but in nature, electricity is a field of photons, whether it pushing any particles or not. And electricity (the field of photons) will push electrons, or protons, or ions, or neutral atoms, or any combination of these. The easiest natural electricity to visualize is the Sun's electric field.
According to my experience the amount of persons able to talk about these issues was very limited even there where i studied the stuff. Any one can do the math as soon the Equations are given, but I mean who is really able to talk about the reality behind all these equations. I need hours to get in to such a mood.
I let the clouds be my teacher. By watching clouds every day and whenever I go out, I am learning much about the behaviour of natural electricity.
So the paper I did, is nothing else but the start-shot for the discussion. A proposal about how these issues could be talked. And as a such it just can't be too long, or nobody will ever read it, and there won't be any discussion.
I hope I don't come across too harsh or contentious. I do challenge things that you say. The concepts that are new to me. But if you want me to try on your theory, you have to answer to my challenges, and your answers should give me the concepts, the pieces, so I can build the theory up in my mind.
Maybe the whole paper should be re-structurated with a totally different approach.
Sometimes that has to be done. But you have a base that can be worked on, and adjusted, and improved as time goes on, and as your knowledge and understanding grows.
Thank you for all that. My best wishes.
I'm going to spend some time looking at your links now.
~Paul
