Great Scott! I like what you're all writing.

You certainly get my vote that electrons accelerated to light speed turn into energy. Not sure mass would do the same, though, since electrons in (atomic) mass are locked-in on the nucleus, so more problematic there. We must remember Einstein's famous equation says E = mc^2, not E = mc. So to have mass reach the level of pure energy, you have to go the speed of light again, not two or three the speed of light, but times the speed of light, its square.. and that's fast!

I believe the conventional wisdom on the Casimir force between two tightly positioned highly polished plates is due the the limitation of electromangetic wavelength not being able to penetrate between the plates. The analogy often given is why AM radio does not work in a tunnel, since the radio waves are too long to make it into the tunnel's mouth, unlike FM, which can. The result is that all the pressure from e.m. energy on the outside of the plates is not equalized with the same from between the plates, so that they are "pushed" together. This is present theory.

My reasoning, of course, is different. Not that I am contrary person by nature, which truly I am not, but because I see it differently. All familiar with my pior posts (Axiomatic yadi yada) will know that I believe that space is inherently gravity rich, which is countered into its observably weak force because we happen to live in an energy rich environment, thanks to our local hot star. If we were measuring gravity far from any hot star, we would discover it much greater than measured here. Therefore, if the e.m. lambda can't make it in between the tightly positioned plates, what happens is that the space between them, being an energy poor region, recreates the powerful gravity "vacuum" which is inherent to it, and thus the plates are "pulled" together by this vacuum. This makes a world more sense to me than other currently believed explanations. Let's call it future theory.

About gravitons, don't really know they exist, though theorized to exist. But they may turn out to be no more than "shadow" of e.m. energy, not the real mccoy. I would place my bets on "shadow radiation" of Quantum instead, which is more cool, and may not be limited to v = c limitations. Is v = c the fastest possible velocity? As far as we know, nothing can go faster, except perhaps in theory if mass is already "traveling" at lightspeed in relation to the photons defining it, and generated from beyond the light horizon, then any acceleration in our realm of existence of necessity makes it above lightspeed, though this may not actually be happening except perhaps in the event horizon of a black hole, where both mass and light may be pulled in gravitationally with such force that they orbit above lightspeed before falling in... just a theory, a possibility, a mind bubble, truly a spec... won't know 'till we get there, and quickly Quantum-shadow communicate back before we're fried.

C2


[Edited by Coppernicus2 on 08/12/03 at 01:33]
__________________
I have formally 'resigned' (tactical withdraw) from the Space-Talk boards; mine were many questions, ideas, but no real answers. Thanks. 04/10/04.

Disclaimer: Please note the ideas expressed here by me are cutting edge theory, very speculative in nature, and not physics as it is being currently taught. Caveat lector.

quote:

---

electrons accelerated to light speed turn into energy

---

RE "What does "electrons in mass are locked-in on the nucleus?""

Obviously should have said "electrons in (atomic) mass", to clarify. Will go back and edit original with parenthetical.

Not sure what you mean RE UR:

"I'm not really sure how you pulled all that from E=mc^2. In fact, you don't accelerate matter to the speed of light (even if you could) to convert it to energy for use. The last I remember using that equation was when calculating the difference in nuclear binding force in a nuclear reaction."

Are you saying "Energy" means one thing inside the atom, as regards to mass and lightspeed squared, and that Energy is something else as it applies to velocity of atomic mass? Hmmm... are you then saying Physics is inconsistent in its formulations, so that what appears to be Energy as a product of mass times lightspeed squared (which is how the equation reads) is not that at all, but merely an "expression" of how atomic mass converts to energy when a nuclear reaction takes place? How many ways are there to understand Energy? Is there "Energy" as "E", and then there's perhaps kinetic-energy as "KE"? Are they all related or not? Are we talking about "different" kinds of Energy? Does physics destinguish different "E" into different kinds of "Energies"? You might like to clarify what you have in mind, not clear how you wrote it.

I'll leave it here...

C2
__________________
I have formally 'resigned' (tactical withdraw) from the Space-Talk boards; mine were many questions, ideas, but no real answers. Thanks. 04/10/04.

Disclaimer: Please note the ideas expressed here by me are cutting edge theory, very speculative in nature, and not physics as it is being currently taught. Caveat lector.

Again, you really need to read a basic physics text book before you try to solve the mysteries of the universe using principles taught in basic physics text books.

The study of physics is consistent with regards to energy. Energy is usually measured in the same units. Energy by itself means very little. The various equations you find regarding energy describe how energy manifests itself in the real world.

Kinetic energy is the energy contained in a moving body. Using energy in calculations makes it particularly useful when calculating the velocity and attitude vectors of moving bodies. For example, its easier to calculate potential energy of a swinging pendelum at the top of its swing, and use that as input to the kinetic energy equation to solve for velocity at the bottom of the swing, than to integrate velocities along the swing of the pendelum.

Energy freely moves from one situation to the next. When you pick up a rock and lift it above your head, you add potential energy to the rock as well as to the earth. When you drop it, that potential energy is transformed into kinetic energy. Potential energy decreases as height decreases. Kinetic energy increases as velocity increases. When the rock strikes the ground, some of that kinetic energy is transferred to the earth causing the earth to move ever so slightly.

E=mc^2 relates mass directly to energy. In a nuclear reaction, some mass seemingly magically vanishes. Its actually converted into energy. Like I said, energy by itself does not mean much. This energy takes on the form of mostly heat and light. As you probably know, a great amount of energy is released from even a very small conversion of mass.

During the split second of a supernova, the collapsing core generates so much energy that some is "converted" to mass (thats the quickest way I can describe nuclear binding force) producing heavier elements than iron. As you may have deduced, it takes a great amount of energy to convert to even a miniscule amount of mass.

One of your biggest mistakes that you repeatedly use even after I told you about it, is that you incorrectly assumed that the E in "Em/Bm=c" is energy. There are many more properties of the universe than we have letters in the alphabet, so occasionally letters are reused. Normally, energy is written as "Q". I guess, at the time that Einstein wrote it, "E" represented energy. In "Em/Bm=c", E is a quantity representing an electric field, and the m's were subscripts that you quoted from the website you found them on.

In this case, the physical quantities these variables represent do not change. The notation does sometimes change. For example, there are multitude of different variables and units in the study of photometry. It seems we can't finally decide which unit of measure to use, and which notation to use. The physical relationships are the same. The way we write these relationship sometimes change, but it does not change the meaning.

Wintermute11,

When you say "One of your biggest mistakes that you repeatedly use even after I told you about it, is that you incorrectly assumed that the E in "Em/Bm=c" is energy," you are really misreading what I wrote (General Discussion/Magnetism vs. Gravity/pg. 6/ August 9, 2003: http://www.space-talk.com/ForumE/showthread.php3?threadid=1240&pagenumber=lastpage ). I was careful to show how Em * c = E, not what you are saying above. Of course, if we cannot equate the E's (not Em's!), then physics is incomplete.

I appreciate your effort in trying to explain my errors, but they are not what you think since you misread what I wrote, as just shown. My thesis is based on the equality of Energy, and its various expressions. If the separate expressions for Energy are wrong, then the equation makes no sense. But if they individually are correct, then an equation based on the equality of Energy should work.

Referencing current physics books is good, and basic physics should be understood, but not to blindly accept theory, which is not fact, nor to expect to find all the answers there. If they were, we today would not be in the physics confusion we've had for the past 100 years. You must admit that engineers do not use GR or SR or the Standard Model in their work when they send probes into space... or point missiles at each other. Newtonian physics works, but it does not explain the anomalies of deep space. The Axiomatic takes it into deep space.

In response to your: " It seems we can't finally decide which unit of measure to use, and which notation to use. The physical relationships are the same." This is key, that we need universal units. If there is a common thread of Energy throughout physics, from subatomic to astronomy, and if the individual expressions of E are correct, then stringing these expressions into a master equation, with the results worked out in SI Base Units: meters, kilograms, and time, should work. And this would also be key to understanding physics at a distance, where we cannot go yet, and make sense of black holes, dark matter, fast spinning neutron stars, Oort clouds, etc.

So, I assure you that I am NOT equating Em and E, not the case at all.

I hope this helps explain the equation better. I think what needs to be challenged, seeking errors, should focus on either mathematical error, or where a component of each sub-equation does not represent E = Energy. That would kill the equation, if some part of it is not = E. For example, some possible weaknesses: can mass be both m = 1 and m = 0? And if m = 1, can it also be written as a representation of its gravitational force = g constant (in units of proton to proton gravity relationship, not same as Newton G), so that: m = (m-g)? These are clearly points of contention, as they should be, since this is where we depart from textbooks and venture into a "new physics". It is the same for magnetic force B, where m = (0+Bm). The key is that for it to work, and it has to have verifiable and predictable results (see bottom of copy below). In Em/Bm from Hyperphysics page, I believe the "m" stands for Maxwell's.

Let me break it down to perhaps the simplest level I can (this was actually posted elsewhere):
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ENERGY'S AXIOMATIC EQUATIONS?

1. Energy is the basic common denominator of known physics, as
eloquently expressed by Einstein's famous equation: E = mc^2

2. Energy can also be expressed (DeBroglie) as: E = hc/L , where h =
Planck's constant, c = light velocity, L = photon lambda, so that we
can say:

E = hc/L = mc^2

3. Now, if light is an electromagnetic phenomenon, the we can also
say (per Hyperphysics:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/emwv.html -and-
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefie.html), per
Maxwell's equation:

Em/Bm = c , and c = 1/(eo mo)^1/2

so that magnetic value times lightspeed: Bm * c = Em, its electric
value equivalent.

The question then becomes, can this equation be raised to the level of
Energy?

4. A way to do this is to multiply Em by lightspeed, so that:

Em * c = (Bm)c^2, which says that an electron accelerated to
lightspeed is energy, which if so gives us:

Em * c = (Bm)c^2 = E

5. Combining the above into a continuous equation gives us:

Em * c = hc/L = h/L(eo mo)^1/2 = (Bm)c^2

6. However, this is a still incomplete equation, taking E = mc^2, we
then have:

Em * c = hc/L = h/L(eo mo)^1/2 = (Bm)c^2 = mc^2 = E

* * *

Now, this last continuous equation gives us a way to interrelate
electric field, magnetic field, Planck's constant, photon lambda, and
mass, all as Energy. This looks like a rather unifying equation for
these forces, except gravity is still missing. The way to solve this
(and here we are treading on new and dangerous ground) is to give mass
a gravity and magnetic value.

If we set mass as m = 1, to represent one hydrogen atom, which is an
incomplete value, since from it is missing a gravitational constant,
which is represented here as negative g = 5.9x10^-39, a negative
remainder from how the atom is formed, so that mass is now expressed
as: m (gravity/kilograms) = (1-g)

(as per Gravity Force Coupling at:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/couple.html which
is not the same as Newtonian G)

Likewise, if we set mass for magnetic, then the internal atomic
positive and negative magnetic charges equal zero, m = 0, except for
the atom's magnetic remainder, which here is set as a positive value
at m = (0+Bm). Therefore, m (magnetic potential) = Bm

(This can further be illustrated with E/c^2 = m, which is now E/c^2 =
Bm, which translates into E = (Bm)c^2, as per #4 above.)

7. So, in taking the energy continuous equation to its conclusion,
using the new values for mass, we get:

Em * c = hc/L = h/L(eo mo)^1/2 = (Bm)c^2 = (1-g)c^2 = E

which now represents an Axiomatic Equation for Energy including
electric field, magnetic field, light speed, Planck's constant, photon
lambda, mass, and gravity. (Please note the gravity constant is not
Newton's Gravity, for it is a proton to proton value, which needs to
be converted further to become Newton's G.) This axiomatic equation,
with conversions and SI Base Units values (meters, kilograms, time),
was developed more extensively at:

http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?84/108.html

I am posting this equation here to solicit reasonable feedback. Is
energy universal? Can it be expressed as per the 7 equations listed
above? If not, where lies the error? Is is not all Energy?

The conclusion (speculative at this point) from how this axiomatic
equation is written is that electromagnetic energy and gravity become
inversely proportional to the energy environment within which they are
measured. This may mean, a possibility only, that gravity density
around Pluto will be greater than that of Mercury, which would then
mean that in using the Orbital Equation: v^2*R = GM, yields for us a
mass reading that may be inaccurate, since we had always assumed G to
be constant. Of course, if it is not constant, then the mass values
must represent something else, which may mean that Pluto is perhaps
really a dirty water ice-ball planet, whereas Mercury is nearly all
metallic.

The other ramification from this equation is that if photon lambda is
totally canceled out, gravity g reaches its maximum value (from 0 to
1) of g = 1, which means total gravity takes over, mass ceases to
exist, light ceases to exist, all is left is gravity... like a black
hole. So these equations may be important, if true, since it would
give us a new perspective on universal gravity (not equally constant)
and provide a way to solve for various components of the equation in
relation to each other.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Come on, on a scale of 1 - 10, I gotta get at least a 3!

C2


__________________
I have formally 'resigned' (tactical withdraw) from the Space-Talk boards; mine were many questions, ideas, but no real answers. Thanks. 04/10/04.

Disclaimer: Please note the ideas expressed here by me are cutting edge theory, very speculative in nature, and not physics as it is being currently taught. Caveat lector.

There's a difference between blind faith and doing a little research. You're trying to use well known and widely accepted physics to prove your point, but you refuse to learn even the basic physics you're trying to use.

In "Em * c = (Bm)c^2 = E", where do you get "(Bm)c^2=E". Where's your source? You don't mention a source or list a proof in your passage. I see "(Bm)c=Em", but not "(Bm)c^2=E."

Also, just so I understand you, what does "E" and "Em" physically represent according to your theory? Please be specific. What units are these measured in?

I reviewed your previous posts again, and they just make the matter even more confusing.

quote:

---

Now, per that equation, if Em/Bm = c is a good function, ...

---

Hi wintermute11,

I do have a question regarding the force of gravity. Can gravity exist if mass does not exist? Your reply to the other fellow seemed to say that gravity can exist even if matter does not exist. Isn't gravity an effect generated by mass?

Per your understanding, I quote:

"An electric field popagates at the speed of light, and is independent of the speed of the charge producing the field."

In the reference you suggested, re Point Charge, it says:
( http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/PointCharge.html )

"The magnetic and electric fields of a moving charge are related by cgs by:
B = v/c x E "

Now, why would this not be the same for v = c, where by rewriting the above equation as: B x c = v x E, then multiplying both sides by c, so it is:
B x c^2 = c x E...? is this okay? What does it mean? Is this different from having electric field (whether generated by an electron or many electrons in a stream) accelerated to lightspeed? If it doesn't mean this, then what does this equation mean? Do the people who write physics have different ad hoc interpretations for their expressions of electric fields, light velocity, and energy?

This is the equation I was working with, and calling it E x c = Energy = B x c^2 (to not confuse electric E and Energy E, so used the m subscript). I really do not have an interpretation for what this equation means, but in fitting it into the rest of the Axiomatic, I bring it all together into Joules per second, or Watts, which is m^2.kg.s^-3, per SI units.

Really, you want me to certify that this equation is absolute truth with the known physics. My response is that it is a possible truth for the new physics, not the known physics, though existing mathematical equations are being used to arrive at this new idea. Am I wrong to put existing physics expressions together? And if the results do not please you, does it mean that the math is wrong? Or could perhaps the physics be wrong?

You must understand that all this is showing is that Gravity may not be the universal constant we had always assumed it to be. I am not challenging how electrons or electric and magnetic fields are measured, nor how they may interact in relativistic relationships. That is all known physics, and many a student will happily labor over these things. But I am taking stock physics equations, putting them together (zero value in your opinion) and showing that a new relationship, one overlooked, seems to be showing through. It may be worth pursuing, especially if it starts to better explain distant gravity phenomenon, as mentioned before. Another interesting result from this is that if gravity is of greater density in deep space (far from energy sources), then light passing through those regions will redshift on the way to us... and that does challenge the expanding universe, and Big Bang. No apologies from me if that is so.

C2




__________________
I have formally 'resigned' (tactical withdraw) from the Space-Talk boards; mine were many questions, ideas, but no real answers. Thanks. 04/10/04.

Disclaimer: Please note the ideas expressed here by me are cutting edge theory, very speculative in nature, and not physics as it is being currently taught. Caveat lector.

Read below the "B = v/c x E" equation. This is only an approproximation, but the error is negligible at slow speeds. When speeds approach the speed of light, the error becomes too great to use this equation. You must adjust for relativity. Below the "B = v/c x E" are the relatavistic equations.

quote:

---

Is this different from having electric field (whether generated by an electron or many electrons in a stream) accelerated to lightspeed

---

By Jove, I think we've got it!

Wintermute11, when you said: "To find the energy contained in an electromagnetic field, try finding the energy density."

Of course, that's the next step, energy density. I even looked for it in Power, where E = P = F*v = etc. (see: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Power.html ) which converts power into a P-wave, which enriches the E equation with another relationship, but had not developed it. Not sure I know enough to do so...

Instead, I had kept my work very lean by using E = mc^2 as my model, but any other model for Energy could have been used as a root core. In fact, I do not believe the Axiomatic Equation is anywhere near complete (which is why I only gave myself a 3, for which you gave me a "0"), and there is much that will be added to it in the future. Then, each component of the equation can be developed further, so the final edition can become immensely complex... but it will hold. It will come through in the end as one complete unifying equation, and I only wrote the first few steps in it. I wish I knew more to write the rest, but I cannot do so until our space probes measure gravity in the outer solar system. Then we will know whether or not gravity is a constant (as now believed) or a variable (as the equation predicts), so that we will know what to look for. So this is only theory, still too early to call.

So Theory, not Gospel, and what it says is that we had been focussed on the Energy portion of the known physics because electromagnetic energy dominates our local system, and thus turned a blind eye to what this energy interacts with. The result is that our Quantum theories and Standard Model are all based on energy, almost to the exclusion of gravity. Now, if we happened to live in an energy poor environment, say Crab neutron star, we might have developed the same theories, but instead using gravity as the medium rather than electromagnetic energy. This is how I see it in my mind's eye, that we are bedazzled by energy, not realizing that the flip side of this is gravity. According to the Axiomatic Equation in question, gravity is all encompassing when electromagnetic energy is missing, where G^2 = c^2, so that the two are mirror images of each other. But our known physics doesn't see that, so instead we are entirely focussed on the energy side, not the gravity side, and so all our work had been there. Call it a Terracentric bias, but should we do the same studies from Pluto, we would not be quite so focussed on what the Sun puts out for us. The fact that our local star is so powerful literally blinds us from seeing beyond it.

When the Axiomatic Equation is completed someday, it will stretch into a very large equation of Energy, with an equally large equation for Gravity, its flip side. This is how I predict it will come out. But it cannot do so if we do not recognize gravity being a variable, and this will not be known until we send space probes to Pluto. Of course, the flip side of all this, is that the Theory goes bust, zero, nada, if gravity is truly a universal constant as we had believed since the days of Newton, and later Einstein. But if they are proven wrong, and it is not a constant, then let's start working on this equation, of which I only seeded the first steps. Perhaps I made a mistake on Em*c = E, and E is not =(Bm)c^2, but don't know for sure, only theory. Perhaps Bm is not magnetic force, is magnetic monopoles instead (values of 0 to 1), or magnetizability, don't know.... but it does add up into how the equation reads out (with Bm = ~1), in Power, Joules per second, Watts: E = ~8.99x10^16 m^2.kg.s^-3.

So this Axiomatic Equation is not a conclusive work, but rather an early exploratory work, one which I am happy to share with others (frustrating that this may be) so that if it is shown to work in deep space, let's get on with it, go for it, and really write this thing out. Is B = v/c x E at light speed a relativistic equation, as you said above? It can be, but we may not need to turn to Relativity to figure this out. It may in the end be much simpler than we had imagined, because Gravity will turn out to be a variable, and that will simplify everything.

Don't throw out the physics books! We will need all we know, but we should be aware that theoretically we had been focussed on only one side of what the universe is made, energy, and we ignored the other side, which is gravity. When I read the proliferation of "Theory of Everything" models out there (and some are really out there!), they all focus on the same thing, either Quantum energy or electromagnetic ways to explain gravity. Forget gravitons. The difference in the approach I am suggesting is that gravity is by default, and needs not be explained theoretically with electromagnetic energy. Gravity already is. And what we get here, thanks to our Sun, is only a very diluted version of the real thing.

Now, what if Pluto space probes report back that gravity is the same there as here? Put my equation into the shit can, and call me a stupid, insane, a ridiculous Zero! I'm not proud, and I'll take that gamble. But if not, there is a lot of work to be done, for this equation when written in its full will be a Ten. To all, very best of luck, don't give up. If Pluto comes back with a positive report, this whole thing potentially becomes very exciting! All participants will be welcome.

At your service,

Coppernicus2

Ps: Sliderulex, you are very right, you need mass to measure gravity, otherwise there is no way to know what it is.
__________________
I have formally 'resigned' (tactical withdraw) from the Space-Talk boards; mine were many questions, ideas, but no real answers. Thanks. 04/10/04.

Disclaimer: Please note the ideas expressed here by me are cutting edge theory, very speculative in nature, and not physics as it is being currently taught. Caveat lector.