How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

[PhysBang]

Reverse the direction of the arrowhead to go from an electron to a positron. That's like going from clockwise to anticlockwise, only in three dimensions. See http://www.cybsoc.org/cybcon2008prog.htm#jw for background reading. The authors of Is the electron a photon with a toroidal topology? were at CERN for 6 years and know their stuff, but this paper has been largely overlooked. Or perhaps "studiously ignored" is closer to the mark. Funny old business is physics.

It is a paper that should be ignored. The two primary reasons that the paper is not valuable is that, while the paper can recover one aspect of the electron, the idea behind the paper is inconsistent with everything else about the election and the paper cannot explain why a photon would ever behave like the author describes.

One should not trust in a broad interpretation of the results of the paper (far beyond that actually written in the paper!) because of the argument from authority that the author of the paper worked at CERN. There are many different kinds of employees at CERN and many of them do not need to understand the physics studied there in great detail.

[Farsight]

Here's a similar paper that has been studiously ignored: The nature of the electron by Qiu-Hong Hu. Papers like these tend to be dissed by naysayers who don't explain anything and instead butt in to offer platitudes like quantum mechanics surpasseth all human understanding.

[PhysBang]

Here's a similar paper that has been studiously ignored: The nature of the electron by Qiu-Hong Hu. Papers like these tend to be dissed by naysayers who don't explain anything and instead butt in to offer platitudes like quantum mechanics surpasseth all human understanding.

If somebody doesn't understand the relevant physics, they have to ask themselves how reasonable the physics is for that paper. They would note that this paper has only been accepted for publication in a non-professional journal that is populated by papers by non-professional physicists or by physicists publishing outside of their areas of expertise. In other words, a crank journal.

If one was interested in the sociology of jewish people, one would not look to the publications of the Klu Klux Klan. Similarly, one should not look to Physics Essays for good physics. Guilt-by-association is not always a fallacy: one should look carefully to the associations of a person if one wants to use that person as an authority.

[Jakob]

Here's a similar paper that has been studiously ignored: The nature of the electron by Qiu-Hong Hu. Papers like these tend to be dissed by naysayers who don't explain anything and instead butt in to offer platitudes like quantum mechanics surpasseth all human understanding.

If somebody doesn't understand the relevant physics, they have to ask themselves how reasonable the physics is for that paper. They would note that this paper has only been accepted for publication in a non-professional journal that is populated by papers by non-professional physicists or by physicists publishing outside of their areas of expertise. In other words, a crank journal.

If one was interested in the sociology of jewish people, one would not look to the publications of the Klu Klux Klan. Similarly, one should not look to Physics Essays for good physics. Guilt-by-association is not always a fallacy: one should look carefully to the associations of a person if one wants to use that person as an authority.

This analogy doesn't hold water at all. if one would be interested in the factual history of the Jews, one should certainly not ask the Jews!

Who has convinced you that the physicists society and the physicists preferred method have the authority over the workings of the universe? There is a chosen direction in which a tradition aims to explain the world and a certain code that is tied to that, and whoever does not strictly use their code is thereby disqualified - by them. Not by any objective reality.

[PhysBang]

This analogy doesn't hold water at all. if one would be interested in the factual history of the Jews, one should certainly not ask the Jews!

You should re-read my post. I did not suggest that. Indeed, one should consult historians.

Who has convinced you that the physicists society and the physicists preferred method have the authority over the workings of the universe? There is a chosen direction in which a tradition aims to explain the world and a certain code that is tied to that, and whoever does not strictly use their code is thereby disqualified - by them. Not by any objective reality.

In this case, Farsight is attempting to make an argument from authority. If you do not accept this authority, then fine, we agree. If you only want to accept someone as an authority because they agree with what you are saying, that's fine too, but it won't convince anyone else.

Whinging about the shortcoming of physics doesn't get physics done. Neither does accepting half-assed papers.

[Jakob]

This analogy doesn't hold water at all. if one would be interested in the factual history of the Jews, one should certainly not ask the Jews!

You should re-read my post. I did not suggest that. Indeed, one should consult historians.

Ay, I dramatically misread that word. But does it make an essential difference?
Inside accounts of a society are necessarily biased in favor of that societies validity to continue to act as it needs to to preserve itself according to its self-image.

Not to say that an outsider necessarily has a clear perspective - but it does not seem to me that the sources Farsight presents are antagonistic toward and ignorant of the subject of physics, rather reluctant to obey to restriction to certain methods and dogma's about expected outcomes.

Who has convinced you that the physicists society and the physicists preferred method have the authority over the workings of the universe? There is a chosen direction in which a tradition aims to explain the world and a certain code that is tied to that, and whoever does not strictly use their code is thereby disqualified - by them. Not by any objective reality.

In this case, Farsight is attempting to make an argument from authority. If you do not accept this authority, then fine, we agree. If you only want to accept someone as an authority because they agree with what you are saying, that's fine too, but it won't convince anyone else.

Whinging about the shortcoming of physics doesn't get physics done. Neither does accepting half-assed papers.

I never got the impression that Farsight was appealing to authority, only that he is making a lot of sense. If he would have needed to appeal to authority to support points he makes I would have ignored those points, they would not have registered with me. The only authority is clarity.

[James S Saint]

The only authority is Clarity.

Perfect.
..well if you add.. Verification.

Btw, I am pretty certain that I spoke with the first guy that publicly proposed that toroid theory a few years ago, or at least one of them. He had to use 4 spacial dimensions to make it work out right so I immediately dismissed his theory, although the toroid idea could have still been valid. I suspect the paper that Farsight linked to got the idea from such a person and then applied Broglie's and/or other more professionally accepted theories so as to get community acceptance (such is often the case).

I can't say that the toroid idea is right or wrong (yet), but it doesn't seem as likely as others. If the math using Maxwell's equations works out for his toroid model, then I am certain that the precision isn't right because the Maxwellian equations aren't precisely right. But again, that doesn't mean that a toroid construct is wrong. So far, I haven't seen the need for such complexity, but then, I am starting from a very different perspective that allows for me to sometimes know for a fact that certain accepted equations cannot be precise. But often exact precision isn't necessary for the over-all idea to be valid.

So far, I am more inclined toward the spherical form rather than the toroid.

[Farsight]

James: You're right to be inclined towards the spherical form, because the evidence tells us that the electron "shape" is indeed spherical. See http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46085 and http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028145.100. But consider an inflatable rubber ring. Inflate it, and the ring turns into a torus. Keep on inflating it. The torus gets fatter and fatter, and looks apple-like. Keep on inflating it, and it ends up looking spherical.

Jakob: PhysBang isn't being straight with you here. I don't appeal to authority, I appeal to scientific evidence. We can make an electron (along with a positron) via pair production. We start with an electromagnetic wave, and we end up with a "particle" which still has a wave nature, as demonstrated by electron diffraction. An electron has a magnetic dipole moment because it has spin. Some people will insist that spin is "intrinsic", and is nothing to do with ordinary rotation, but what they won't tell you about is the scientific evidence of the Einstein-de Haas effect which "demonstrates that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics". Unfortunately the people who will tell you about this struggle to get their papers into high-impact journals, because the physics they offer is seen as a threat. Then when they settle for a little-known journal, they are decried as cranks. They aren't. The cranks are the people telling you about the multiverse, ten-dimensional branes, and hypothetical particles for which no evidence has been found even after decades.

[Farsight]

And it isn't just the way-out stuff that puts itself in the way of scientific progress. Here's something to think about:



This is a depiction of annihilation. You can annihilate an electron and a positron to get light, and you can annihilate a proton and an antiproton to get light too. A proton is said to be composed of quarks and gluons, which are described as fundamental particles, see the CSIRO outreach page for more. The $64,000 dollar question is this: if all those fundamental quarks and gluons have gone, how come they're fundamental?

[James S Saint]

In any regard, one shouldn't get the notion that any particle is like a marble with a surface whether spinning or not. The outside of any particle must always be in flux and really more like a spinning cloud with higher and lower densities involved.

And btw, the "negative on the outside" analogy won't hold up, despite its tempting simplicity.

[PhysBang]

I don't appeal to authority, I appeal to scientific evidence.

And yet somehow, your only defense of your interpretation of Einstein is cherry-picked quotations while you have never bothered to actually learn the content of his theories because you cannot follow the mathematics. You cannot show that any of your fanciful suppositions are consistent with the most basic tests of the theories that you claim to employ.

In the case of these toroid papers, you want us to believe your position because actual physicists have written about it and you mention that one of them worked for CERN. This is an attempt to impress those who cannot do the physics for themselves. Since you cannot actually follow the relevant physics yourself, your only use of these papers can be to cite them as an authority for their conclusions.

This is not clarity, this is artful obfuscation.

[Farsight]

James: yes, there are no actual surfaces. And yes, I hesitated before saying negative on the outside. It doesn't get to the bottom of it, but it's difficult to give a succinct and short explanation for topological charge and chirality.

[Jakob]

I understand that whatever you're saying in such plain terms is not meant literally, using terms that apply to human scale objects to scales where such terms do not literally apply... But then again this is the terrain where force becomes form, so it makes sense that these are half-truths, indications of reality that are not actual descriptions.

Having said that - I assume there is some truth in that description of negative on the outside. What is the greatest objection to this phrasing?

I did not have the imagine in my mind of a ball with a negatively charged coat or anything - I realize nothing like that is the case. I don't think of electrons as solids, I generally think of matter as a certain dense condition of force, and it is clear that the electron is near the threshold between different conditions. The explanation of spin made this more concrete.

[Farsight]

I'd say the greatest objection is that it doesn't explain what positive and negative actually are. A lot of "explanations" in physics explain something only in terms of something else that isn't explained, and after a while you learn to see through them.

To give you a better explanation, I need to explain other things too. One of them is chirality. See this flat two-dimensional depiction of rotation?



It's depicting an anticlockwise spin. If you reflect this in a mirror, you get a clockwise spin. But you could get the same thing by looking at it from the back. So you can't really say that this spin is clockwise or anticlockwise. But imagine this spinning thing is a penny, and you can stand it edge-on on your desk whilst it's still spinning. Then you can give it another spin, additional to the clockwise/anticlockwise spin. And you can do this with your left hand or your right hand, such that the additional spin goes one way or the other. Imagine you've got two of them, one of which you spun with your left hand, the other with your right. The two compounds spins aren't the same. The chirality is different. To appreciate this a little more you should play with paper strips. Get four paper strips, draw arrows on both sides of the paper, and make moebius strips.

[James S Saint]

James: yes, there are no actual surfaces. And yes, I hesitated before saying negative on the outside. It doesn't get to the bottom of it, but it's difficult to give a succinct and short explanation for topological charge and chirality.

Let me see if I can clarify something here (again with Rational Metaphysics, sorry);

Imagine that you have a region of space that has a high density of non-particle "space-stuff" (call it what you will, in RM it is called "affectance"). And you also have another region of low density space stuff.

You already know that a particle is a wave of that space-stuff formed of high and low peaks swirling in a knot (of whatever design). But now think what you get if you form a particle within each region. In the high density region, you have a particle of high density waves and in the low region, you have a particle of low density waves.

But a particle is a particle due simply to the fact that it doesn't disintegrate into its surroundings as a radiant wave does. Now what would you think would happen if those two regions came close to each other? The high density flows into the low as the low infiltrates the high. So the regions merge to become more uniform in density. But what of the non-changing particles?

They each represent a concentration of their original space density particlized and thus not changing. So even though the region is becoming more uniform, the particles are not, yet they still "want" to merge due to the difference in their relative density. The space-stuff within each is still attempting to merge, but the particle arrangement doesn't allow merging. The particle is quantized. The density of the space-stuff between them must gradually become the other and thus leave a gradient. They literally "charge" toward each other as high attempts to fill low (or vsvrsa if you like).

Now if the two particles are of the same fundamental form such as an electron and a positron, they actually will merge once they collide and breakup their particle nature, emerging as photon waves with no net "charge" because they have now merged their densities leaving only a ripple of equally high and low areas chasing each other - a photon.

But in the case of a proton and an electron, we have a different situation. They still both represent high and low space-stuff density locked up into a knot, but they are not of the same form. One can push space stuff, but one cannot pull it. Due to that fact, we can obtain very high concentrated particles of "positive" (high density) stuff that got "pushed together", but we cannot get such high concentration of low density stuff because we cannot pull, we have to wait for the high density to leave on its own accord much like waiting for the air to leave a balloon. You cannot pull the air out of a container, but merely push it out or offer a lower vacuum for it to rush into - at its own pace.

But along with getting a high density of space stuff pushed together so as to form a positive charged wave, we can get a different effect due to the ramp of increase involved in a wave, the rate of its changing. That rate of change is what causes what we call inertia and mass. So when we push positive stuff (high density) together quickly, we create a mass from the charged stuff, not merely a concentration of charged stuff. And thus a proton, representing such an occurrence, has a higher mass as well as a higher density, constituting a higher concentration changing (matter), The wave fronts within the proton are much steeper than in the electron. It is due to that difference that they cannot merge because they cannot ever exactly overlay each other. But instead they merely hang around each other pining, forever unsatisfied (thus no need for the mythical "weak force" described in physics).

That effect is also why we have only electrons and protons forming atoms and never positrons and negatons. Although we can create the anti-particles, they are not mathematically stable because a vacuum (a negative) is not the opposite of a concentration, but rather the lack of it. Regardless of any other disturbing effect, they will disintegrate. Regardless of science's speculations, you can never have an "anti-universe".

[Farsight]

Let me see if I can clarify something here (again with Rational Metaphysics, sorry);

Imagine that you have a region of space that has a high density of non-particle "space-stuff" (call it what you will, in RM it is called "affectance"). And you also have another region of low density space stuff.

No problem. The former is what they call dark matter. It has a higher-than-average energy density, and that energy has a mass-equivalence and a gravitational affect. A gravitational field does too, because it''s a density gradient.

You already know that a particle is a wave of that space-stuff formed of high and low peaks swirling in a knot (of whatever design).

If it was both high and low balancing each other out, there would be no net movement of energy/momentum. Take the derivative of a smooth-curved "high" of electromagnetic potential A for the typical electromagnetic sine wave.

But now think what you get if you form a particle within each region. In the high density region, you have a particle of high density waves and in the low region, you have a particle of low density waves.

OK. The high density region could be a region closer to the surface of the earth than the low density region.

But a particle is a particle due simply to the fact that it doesn't disintegrate into its surroundings as a radiant wave does. Now what would you think would happen if those two regions came close to each other? The high density flows into the low as the low infiltrates the high. So the regions merge to become more uniform in density. But what of the non-changing particles?

There's nothing much to say. A pulse traverses a rubber sheet that varies in density from one region to another. It might change speed and profile, but it keeps on going.

They each represent a concentration of their original space density particlized and thus not changing. So even though the region is becoming more uniform, the particles are not, yet they still "want" to merge due to the difference in their relative density. The space-stuff within each is still attempting to merge, but the particle arrangement doesn't allow merging. The particle is quantized. The density of the space-stuff between them must gradually become the other and thus leave a gradient. They literally "charge" toward each other as high attempts to fill low (or versa if you like).

The gradient you're talking about sounds like a gravitational gradient, which is different to electromagnetism and charge. I'd say two particles "charge" towards one another when they have opposite chiral spin. Think frame-dragging, and two opposite whirlpools being attracted to one another.

Now if the two particles are of the same fundamental form such as an electron and a positron, they actually will merge once they collide and breakup their particle nature, emerging as photon waves with no net "charge" because they have now merged their densities leaving only a ripple of equally high and low areas chasing each other - a photon.

They haven't merged their densities, the escaping photons are "pulses" of higher density zipping away at the speed of light. They've just lost their opposite chiral rotations, which cancelled each other out.

But in the case of a proton and an electron, we have a different situation. They still both represent high and low space-stuff density locked up into a knot, but they are not of the same form. One can push space stuff, but one cannot pull it.

I don't hold with that. They have opposite chiral spins and are attracted to one another, but they're different too - there's no lock-and-key annihilation going on.

Due to that fact, we can obtain very high concentrated particles of "positive" (high density) stuff that got "pushed together", but we cannot get such high concentration of low density stuff because we cannot pull, we have to wait for the high density to leave on its own accord much like waiting for the air to leave a balloon. You cannot pull the air out of a container, but merely push it out or offer a lower vacuum for it to rush into - at its own pace.

Sorry James, I can't see this.

But along with getting a high density of space stuff pushed together so as to form a positive charged wave

I'd say the front of the wave is positive, the back is negative.

...we can get a different effect due to the ramp of increase involved in a wave, the rate of its changing. That rate of change is what causes what we call inertia and mass.

No, inertia and mass are what you'd call the wave momentum if it had no aggregate motion with respect to you. Like when it's going round and round as an electron. A steeper wave has more momentum, and if it's going round and round it exhibits more inertia/mass.

...So when we push positive stuff (high density) together quickly, we create a mass from the charged stuff, not merely a concentration of charged stuff. And thus a proton, representing such an occurrence, has a higher mass as well as a higher density, constituting a higher concentration changing (matter)

Not quite. You create charge when you create mass. And antiprotons are negatively charged. Annihilate one with a proton and you get photons again.

The wave fronts within the proton are much steeper than in the electron. It is due to that difference that they cannot merge because they cannot ever exactly overlay each other.

Yes, that's it. That's why the electron and proton don't annihilate.

But instead they merely hang around each other pining, forever unsatisfied

Yes.

(thus no need for the mythical "weak force" described in physics).

It's better to call it the weak interaction. Let's come back to it another day.

That effect is also why we have only electrons and protons forming atoms and never positrons and negatons.

Positronium isn't stable, but antihydrogen is. It's just tricky to stop it wandering off, whereupon the positron annihilates with an electron and the antiproton annihilates with a proton. By the way, positronium is neither matter nor antimatter, it's a combination of both, and is said to be like light hydrogen, see http://www.cs.cdu.edu.au/homepages/jmit ... psatom.htm.

Although we can create the anti-particles, they are not mathematically stable because a vacuum (a negative) is not the opposite of a concentration, but rather the lack of it. Regardless of any other disturbing effect, they will disintegrate. Regardless of science's speculations, you can never have an "anti-universe".

You're thinking about this the wrong way James. An electron is attracted to a positron. It's also attracted to a proton. We call the electron matter. We call the positron antimatter. But we call the proton matter too. It isn't. It's antimatter.

[PhysBang]

No problem. The former is what they call dark matter. It has a higher-than-average energy density, and that energy has a mass-equivalence and a gravitational affect. A gravitational field does too, because it''s a density gradient.

Everyone who knows about this stuff has shown that you are wrong about this: dark matter cannot simply be accounted for by a higher than average mass-energy density; the math doesn't work. You have been asked to try to defend your position by performing a basic calculation of galaxy rotation based on your theory, but you have been unable to do so. This is why your positions are unsupported fantasy.

An electron is attracted to a positron. It's also attracted to a proton. We call the electron matter. We call the positron antimatter. But we call the proton matter too. It isn't. It's antimatter.

Can you back this up using the measurements of the properties of these different particles? Can you demonstrate that the proton is made up of antiquarks, as opposed to the quarks that it is supposed to be composed of?

[James S Saint]

Let me see if I can clarify something here (again with Rational Metaphysics, sorry);

Imagine that you have a region of space that has a high density of non-particle "space-stuff" (call it what you will, in RM it is called "affectance"). And you also have another region of low density space stuff.

No problem. The former is what they call dark matter. It has a higher-than-average energy density, and that energy has a mass-equivalence and a gravitational affect. A gravitational field does too, because it''s a density gradient.

Although I have trouble tracking what they are calling this or that, You might be right. But there are other things going on.

You already know that a particle is a wave of that space-stuff formed of high and low peaks swirling in a knot (of whatever design).

If it was both high and low balancing each other out, there would be no net movement of energy/momentum. Take the derivative of a smooth-curved "high" of electromagnetic potential A for the typical electromagnetic sine wave.

Emm.. the high and low peaks of a wave aren't in the same location. The motion comes from them having a vector due to the gradient and then each is "chasing" the other.

But now think what you get if you form a particle within each region. In the high density region, you have a particle of high density waves and in the low region, you have a particle of low density waves.

OK. The high density region could be a region closer to the surface of the earth than the low density region.

It doesn't have to be close to an actual massive object, but yeah it could be.

But a particle is a particle due simply to the fact that it doesn't disintegrate into its surroundings as a radiant wave does. Now what would you think would happen if those two regions came close to each other? The high density flows into the low as the low infiltrates the high. So the regions merge to become more uniform in density. But what of the non-changing particles?

There's nothing much to say. A pulse traverses a rubber sheet that varies in density from one region to another. It might change speed and profile, but it keeps on going.

But the "rubber sheet" analogy implies a tensile and tension that doesn't actually exist. Nothing is really being stretched (although I realize that is your paradigm ).

They each represent a concentration of their original space density particlized and thus not changing. So even though the region is becoming more uniform, the particles are not, yet they still "want" to merge due to the difference in their relative density. The space-stuff within each is still attempting to merge, but the particle arrangement doesn't allow merging. The particle is quantized. The density of the space-stuff between them must gradually become the other and thus leave a gradient. They literally "charge" toward each other as high attempts to fill low (or versa if you like).

The gradient you're talking about sounds like a gravitational gradient, which is different to electromagnetism and charge. I'd say two particles "charge" towards one another when they have opposite chiral spin. Think frame-dragging, and two opposite whirlpools being attracted to one another.

Opposite spinning whirls don't attract each other any more than identical spinning whirls. Neither would repel away from either. The opposites would merge and the identicals would destroy each other. Gravitation and electric charge are merely different aberrant effects or versions of the same thing. Except with gravitation, you can have no opposite, no negative gravitation and the effect we call charge is a much stronger affect.

Now if the two particles are of the same fundamental form such as an electron and a positron, they actually will merge once they collide and breakup their particle nature, emerging as photon waves with no net "charge" because they have now merged their densities leaving only a ripple of equally high and low areas chasing each other - a photon.

They haven't merged their densities, the escaping photons are "pulses" of higher density zipping away at the speed of light. They've just lost their opposite chiral rotations, which cancelled each other out.

Are you trying to say that a photon has mass?

But in the case of a proton and an electron, we have a different situation. They still both represent high and low space-stuff density locked up into a knot, but they are not of the same form. One can push space stuff, but one cannot pull it.

I don't hold with that. They have opposite chiral spins and are attracted to one another, but they're different too - there's no lock-and-key annihilation going on.

Try to explain how a chiral spin would cause attraction and repulsion (not merely that it does, but how/why).

But along with getting a high density of space stuff pushed together so as to form a positive charged wave

I'd say the front of the wave is positive, the back is negative.

If that were the case, what would you call the dip that goes below zero relative to the surroundings?

...we can get a different effect due to the ramp of increase involved in a wave, the rate of its changing. That rate of change is what causes what we call inertia and mass.

No, inertia and mass are what you'd call the wave momentum if it had no aggregate motion with respect to you. Like when it's going round and round as an electron. A steeper wave has more momentum, and if it's going round and round it exhibits more inertia/mass.

The change rate is what causes that inertia that causes the momentum once in motion and the going round and round. The steeper wave has higher inertia and thus when moving (which it always must be) it is what we call momentum.

You create charge when you create mass. And antiprotons are negatively charged. Annihilate one with a proton and you get photons again.

So every mass is charged? I don't think so.

Positronium isn't stable, but antihydrogen is.

Not unless you define "stable" as a few microseconds. They have assumed that IF it would stay away from other matter, it would be stable. I am telling you that they are wrong about that. But you choose for yourself.

But we call the proton matter too. It isn't. It's antimatter.

Emm.. ??
A proton is antimatter?!?
Where did that come from?

[Farsight]

Emm.. the high and low peaks of a wave aren't in the same location. The motion comes from them having a vector due to the gradient and then each is "chasing" the other.

You're missing something there. Think about two boxes. Box 1 is full of electromagnetic waves, box 2 is empty. The region of space called box 1 has a higher energy density than the region of space called box 2. Let the electromagnetic waves out of box 1 and catch them in box 2. Now the region of space called box 2 has a higher energy density than the region of space called box 1. So the electromagnetic waves themselves are "regions of higher energy density". Just higher, not higher and lower netting off to the average.

But the "rubber sheet" analogy implies a tensile and tension that doesn't actually exist. Nothing is really being stretched (although I realize that is your paradigm

It is only an analogy, but don't forget that those waves do travel. The tension is the result of the strong force. That's what people say is fundamental, and what keeps quarks together in a proton, but they don't mention what happens to it in low-energy proton-antiproton annhilation. Nor do they tell you what happened to the "fundamental" quarks:

Opposite spinning whirls don't attract each other any more than identical spinning whirls. Neither would repel away from either.

They do. You can see this with Falaco solitons. Try it. Alternatively have a look at this and see the bit that says In other words, two bound vortices of opposite circulation attract each other with a force equal to [expression] that must be counterbalanced by an opposite external force to maintain their separation".

The opposites would merge and the identicals would destroy each other.

The opposites attract and merge and destroy one another, the identicals repel. Aim one Falaco soliton straight at the other face-on, and they annihilate.

Gravitation and electric charge are merely different aberrant effects or versions of the same thing. Except with gravitation, you can have no opposite, no negative gravitation and the effect we call charge is a much stronger affect.

They're also different in that gravity is the result of a non-uniform energy density whilst electric charge is associated with magnetic "rot" which is short for rotor and is also known as curl. Gravitomagnetism is something of a mixture between the two, see this NASA article which mentions a vortex.

Are you trying to say that a photon has mass?

No. Taking mass as rest mass, photons move at the speed of light, you can't make them go faster or slower, they aren't at rest, so mass doesn't apply. But trap a photon in a mirror-box, and it adds mass to that system. The photon is rattling around at c, but in aggregate it's no longer moving at c in relation to you. It's effectively at rest, even though it isn't actually at rest. Now its momentum is expressed as inertia. Momentum is what you feel when you try to stop something moving. Inertia is something you feel when you try to start something moving. They're just two ways of looking at change in motion.

Try to explain how a chiral spin would cause attraction and repulsion (not merely that it does, but how/why).

See above. In gravitomagnetism there's "frame dragging", It's there in electromagnetism too. The space is distorted, "swirled", in an inhomogeneous fashion, affecting the path of things in it. Like rotating things. They don't rotate in situ, they move.

If that were the case, what would you call the dip that goes below zero relative to the surroundings?

A hole I suppose. There isn't anything there, just something that's everywhere else but there. People talk about phonons and holes, but I know of no actual subatomic particles like this.

The change rate is what causes that inertia that causes the momentum once in motion and the going round and round. The steeper wave has higher inertia and thus when moving (which is always must be) it is what we call momentum.

If you can't make something go faster or slower, inertia doesn't apply. When it's going round and round it's not moving in aggregate with respect to you, so it's like it's not moving, hence the momentum looks like inertia - you can make this wave going round and round move laterally. You can make it move faster, and then you can make it move slower.

So every mass is charged? I don't think so.

It's true. See Neutron magnetic moment and pay attention to this: It was of particular interest, as magnetic moments are created by the movement of electric charges. The neutron has charge, it's just that it has both positive and negative charge. It isn't a charged particle in the usual sense of the word, because it has no net charge, but it does have charge.

Not unless you define "stable" as a few microseconds. They have assumed that IF it would stay away from other matter, it would be stable. I am telling you that they are wrong about that. But you choose for yourself.

Antiprotons are stable, so are positrons. Ditto for antihydrogen. It's been trapped for a 1000 seconds. Look it up.

Emm.. ?? A proton is antimatter?!?

Yes. I'm deadly serious about that. The electron is matter. It's attracted to a positron, which is antimatter. It's attracted to a proton too. Think about it.

Where did that come from?

My cache of silver bullets. Use it well.

[James S Saint]

Emm.. the high and low peaks of a wave aren't in the same location. The motion comes from them having a vector due to the gradient and then each is "chasing" the other.

You're missing something there. Think about two boxes. Box 1 is full of electromagnetic waves, box 2 is empty. The region of space called box 1 has a higher energy density than the region of space called box 2.

A "higher energy density" NOT necessarily a higher affectance density. Box 2 might have a higher uniform potential to affect the universe than box 1. Imagine that box 2 is highly charged but has no waves, whereas box 1 has waves, but very little charge. The energy is the measure of ability to change something else. The local variation in box 1 can change their immediate surroundings. But the higher uniform charge in box 2 can even more greatly affect a distant surrounding. Local energy is not the same as distant energy.

But the "rubber sheet" analogy implies a tensile and tension that doesn't actually exist. Nothing is really being stretched (although I realize that is your paradigm

It is only an analogy, but don't forget that those waves do travel. The tension is the result of the strong force.

Nope, the "strong force" is a mythical aberration.. sorry (just like the "weak force". As you said, it is an "interaction result", not a actual force).

Opposite spinning whirls don't attract each other any more than identical spinning whirls. Neither would repel away from either.

They do. You can see this with Falaco solitons. Try it. Alternatively have a look at this and see the bit that says In other words, two bound vortices of opposite circulation attract each other with a force equal to [expression] that must be counterbalanced by an opposite external force to maintain their separation".

In a pool that has a gravitation pull transverse to the spin, the whirlpools will "fall" into each other. But they are FALLING due to gravity. They are NOT the gravity itself. If you equate their spin to charge, then you are saying that a spinning heavy mass is a higher charge than a lower mass spinning in the opposite direction. If that were the case, we would have to include the spin of planets in calculating the gravitation attraction. A spinning ball would fall at a different rate than a ball spinning in the opposite direction.

Taking mass as rest mass, photons move at the speed of light, you can't make them go faster or slower, they aren't at rest, so mass doesn't apply.

Yet you equate mass with "higher energy". You can't have it both ways.
Either a higher energy item has higher mass because of its higher energy, or mass is not merely an issue of higher energy.
Make up your mind.
(and please stop presuming that I don't know the difference between inertia and momentum)

Emm.. ?? A proton is antimatter?!?

Yes. I'm deadly serious about that. The electron is matter. It's attracted to a positron, which is antimatter. It's attracted to a proton too. Think about it.

Where did that come from?

My cache of silver bullets. Use it well.

Oh for heaven's sake. You are merely redefining the language.
"Matter" means "the hard stuff".
They define "anti-matter" as the hard stuff of the opposite from the normal hard stuff.

[Farsight]

A "higher energy density" NOT necessarily a higher affectance density. Box 2 might have a higher uniform potential to affect the universe than box 1. Imagine that box 2 is highly charged but has no waves, whereas box 1 has waves, but very little charge. The energy is the measure of ability to change something else. The local variation in box 1 can change their immediate surroundings. But the higher uniform charge in box 2 can even more greatly affect a distant surrounding. Local energy is not the same as distant energy.

An electron has a wave nature, you can diffract electrons. So box 2 might be chock full of electrons, and highly charged. But it would also be chock full of waves.

Carve cubes of "empty" space out at different gravitational potentials to lose the waves but keep the different densities. If all all densities are the same everywhere, there is no affect. Your affectance sounds like available energy.

A "higher energy density" NOT necessarily a higher affectance density. Box 2 might have a higher uniform potential to affect the universe than box 1. Imagine that box 2 is highly charged but has no waves, whereas box 1 has waves, but very little charge. The energy is the measure of ability to change something else. The local variation in box 1 can change their immediate surroundings. But the higher uniform charge in box 2 can even more greatly affect a distant surrounding. Local energy is not the same as distant energy.

An electron has a wave nature, you can diffract electrons. So box 2 might be chock full of electrons, and highly charged. But it would also be chock full of waves.

Nope, the "strong force" is a mythical aberration.. sorry (just like the "weak force". As you said, it is an "interaction result", not a actual force).

So are the electrostatic and magnetic forces, along with gravity.

In a pool that has a gravitation pull transverse to the spin, the whirlpools will "fall" into each other. But they are FALLING due to gravity.

Their attraction isn't due to gravity. Try those Falaco solitons, they move sideways.

They are NOT the gravity itself.

Agreed.

If you equate their spin to charge...

Whoa. The amount of energy spinning doesn't equate to the amount of charge, it equates to the amount of mass. The charge is topological. You've got light going round and round, but light goes in straight lines. So that means the space curves all the way round. Not part of the way or a bit more than all the way. Hence unit charge. The difference between positive and negative is the difference in chirality.

...then you are saying that a spinning heavy mass is a higher charge than a lower mass spinning in the opposite direction

It would have a higher "gravitomagnetic charge", which is something different. A pale insipid ersatz version of the real thing.

If that were the case, we would have to include the spin of planets in calculating the gravitation attraction.

Take a sphere of some given mass. Make it spin real fast, and you've added energy to that system. You've increased its mass. But it's a very small effect unless you spin things very fast. And then they break up before you can spin them fast enough.

A spinning ball would fall at a different rate than a ball spinning in the opposite direction.

Two bodies with different masses fall at the same rate.

Yet you equate mass with "higher energy". You can't have it both ways. Either a higher energy item has higher mass because of its higher energy, or mass is not merely an issue of higher energy. Make up your mind. (and please stop presuming that I don't know the difference between inertia and momentum)

Mass is rest mass, and rest mass is rest energy, only it's only at rest in aggregate. The more energy you've got going round and round in there, the bigger the mass. But regardless of how much energy/momentum a photon conveys in some straight line through space, mass doesn't apply because it isn't at rest.

Oh for heaven's sake. You are merely redefining the language. "Matter" means "the hard stuff". They define "anti-matter" as the hard stuff of the opposite from the normal hard stuff.

Come on James, get your thinking cap on, don't just accept some humpty-dumpty definition that leads to mystery and wooo! Is positronium matter or antimatter? And if it's described as being like "light" hydrogen, where does that leave hydrogen?

[James S Saint]

A "higher energy density" NOT necessarily a higher affectance density. Box 2 might have a higher uniform potential to affect the universe than box 1. Imagine that box 2 is highly charged but has no waves, whereas box 1 has waves, but very little charge. The energy is the measure of ability to change something else. The local variation in box 1 can change their immediate surroundings. But the higher uniform charge in box 2 can even more greatly affect a distant surrounding. Local energy is not the same as distant energy.

An electron has a wave nature, you can diffract electrons. So box 2 might be chock full of electrons, and highly charged. But it would also be chock full of waves.

I wasn't referring to box 2 having electrons within, merely a higher charge field (E-field) than distant areas and higher than box 1.

[Farsight]

Check out the Aharonov-Bohm effect James, and the bit that says: In fact Richard Feynman complained [citation needed] that he had been taught electromagnetism from the perspective of E and B, and he wished later in life he had been taught to think in terms of the A field instead, as this would be more fundamental. Think A for affect.

[Farsight]

This is from the other thread, but it's important.

It is the energy within that creates its size. No energy = no size.

I agree with that. If you're looking for a paradigm, here's one: space and energy are the same thing. So imagine your two boxes are cubes in a cubic lattice marking out space so you can see what's going on. If box 1 has a higher A-field than box 2, it's bigger than box 2. So the lattice lines between them are curved. This curved region is an electromagnetic field. It's the effect, not the cause. The A field is the cause. It's more fundamental.

You are thinking of energy density, energy per size. If the energy reduces, what we use to measure size reduces as well, thus no apparent change in energy density.

Quite. If you walk into box 1, you're affected too, along with all your measuring devices. You can't tell that it's bigger. You thus think all the boxes are the same size, and that box 1 has the higher energy density. Note though that this simple static picture lacks the dynamical action of the world we live in. An electromagnetic wave or photon is like a pulse in the lattice passing you by. A high-energy photon is a fast short pulse, a low-energy photon is a slow long pulse. Reduce the energy and it's slower and longer, hence bigger.

[James S Saint]

Check out the Aharonov-Bohm effect James, and the bit that says: In fact Richard Feynman complained [citation needed] that he had been taught electromagnetism from the perspective of E and B, and he wished later in life he had been taught to think in terms of the A field instead, as this would be more fundamental. Think A for affect.

Oh geez..
The "A-field" is merely the potential to have a magnetic flux.
Feynman merely wanted to think in terms of the real field = the magic field (magnetic field). Rather appropriate for the Ashkenazi. {{Pewthy, spit on the E-field.}}

Quite seriously not boasting, my Affectance field is more fundamental and creates all of the fields, A,B,E, and G along with all of their fluxes. And then it continues into economics, sociology, psychology, health, and just about everything Man has ever done.

It is the energy within that creates its size. No energy = no size.

I agree with that. If you're looking for a paradigm, here's one: space and energy are the same thing. So imagine your two boxes are cubes in a cubic lattice marking out space so you can see what's going on. If box 1 has a higher A-field than box 2, it's bigger than box 2. So the lattice lines between them are curved. This curved region is an electromagnetic field. It's the effect, not the cause. The A field is the cause. It's more fundamental.

You are thinking of energy density, energy per size. If the energy reduces, what we use to measure size reduces as well, thus no apparent change in energy density.

Quite. If you walk into box 1, you're affected too, along with all your measuring devices. You can't tell that it's bigger. You thus think all the boxes are the same size, and that box 1 has the higher energy density. Note though that this simple static picture lacks the dynamical action of the world we live in. An electromagnetic wave or photon is like a pulse in the lattice passing you by. A high-energy photon is a fast short pulse, a low-energy photon is a slow long pulse. Reduce the energy and it's slower and longer, hence bigger.

You're just not getting it. Your mind seems to be half in and half out-of-the-box.