Notices
Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: E=mc^2 (expanded)

  1. #1 E=mc^2 (expanded) 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    E = mc^2 is not credible. See below: (revised)

    Let us first evaluate the components of this formula.
    ‘E’. What is energy? Energy is motion or change. The greatest amount of energy is created by the stars in the form of light pulses. In the fusion process, the hydrogen atoms (HA) are fused into helium nuclei (HN). In this process, the individual HA had more mass than the resultant HN.
    This reduction in mass is assumed to be converted into energy. However, a ‘strong force’ (SF) has been created as well as some neutrinos. So these newly created components could account for the apparent mass loss.

    Another reason why the idea of mass being converted to energy, is that it cannot be ‘visualized’ If you convert a particle that is ‘substance’ into motion of some sort, what happened to the material substance that is converted into motion? Did it just simple disappear? You cannot visualize motion without the presence of a particle.
    So the creation of a SF and the neutron that is composed of an electron, proton and the anti-neutrino is more logical.

    If matter is not converted into energy, than what creates the energies? The energies are created by the FORCES intrinsic to matter such as the Electro-Magnetic (EM) forces. The magnetic component is the main component in the creation of the photons. See my article on the ‘Creation of Photons’.

    On the other hand, fission is opposite in its actions to fusion.

    Let us consider the nuclear fission bomb.
    This bomb is the result of heavy nuclei being fragmented into smaller nuclei components by shattering the nuclear binding force that constitutes the SF. The SF has an extremely short range of 10^-14 meters. This range is the diameter of a proton. The cause of the explosion is the coulomb repulsion between the freed protons.

    Where did this energy come from? Well, as I said, a force has created this energy that was confined by the nuclear binding of the strong force. This is ‘potential’ energy contained by the SF in the nuclei. There was no matter being converted to energy. All that happened here is what one would call 'mass fragmentation' (MFr).

    This MFr than restores the mass reduction in the fusion process to its original mass components for an increase! This is opposite to mass fusion that appears to convert a small quantity of mass into energy.

    The point here is that there appears to be a mass loss during fusion of hydrogen to helium. When this process is reversed to separate the helium nuclei back to hydrogen, the original apparent mass loss would be restored back to its original quantity by the fission process.

    Therefore, the Einstein mass/energy formula cannot be true because forces are the creators of the energies.
    I also see no reason for squaring the velocity of light. Light is a single ONE line dimension. So there is no reason for squaring this dimension that represents the time element of ‘one second’.

    NS


    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Zelos

    I said I would repost this article and so it is.

    NS


    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior Bettina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    264
    I would be interested where you got the data that E = mc^2 is not credible. I can't find a reputable link anywhere and I would like to see one.

    However, I do have this from MIT that just over a year and a half ago the equation passed a very severe test. Here is the link.

    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/emc2.html

    Bettina
    Emotionally based life form. The Fword will get you on my ignore list.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Guest
    I think that's pretty conclusive!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Zelos

    I said I would repost this article and so it is.

    NS
    damn it i thought the cyanid was gonna take care of this

    NOT AGAIN!

    youre madder than the maddest mad man who won the maddest mad mad contest from the amd clan mac mad.

    E=MC² works, have been proven for the last 100 years

    However, a ‘strong force’ (SF) has been created as well as some neutrinos
    strong force isnt created its a FORCE its not CREATED. and the amount of neutrinos this would talk about is far greater than anything that has been observed.
    Conclution: Youre statement is false

    Another reason why the idea of mass being converted to energy, is that it cannot be ‘visualized’ If you convert a particle that is ‘substance’ into motion of some sort, what happened to the material substance that is converted into motion? Did it just simple disappear? You cannot visualize motion without the presence of a particle.
    for the love of anything
    who cares if it can be visualized? it has nothing to do with physics

    Let us consider the nuclear fission bomb.
    This bomb is the result of heavy nuclei being fragmented into smaller nuclei components by shattering the nuclear binding force that constitutes the SF. The SF has an extremely short range of 10^-14 meters. This range is the diameter of a proton. The cause of the explosion is the coulomb repulsion between the freed protons.
    most energy comes from the strong/weak nuclear force. ever looked at the bidning energy of a nucleus? the chart of all elements?

    Therefore, the Einstein mass/energy formula cannot be true because forces are the creators of the energies
    no its the defintion of energy but not what energy is.

    Mike im really jealous of you, you could get a kick in the nuts and you wouldnt mind or even react. must feel so nice to not feel pain
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    880
    where, oh where, do you get your crackpot ideas from? no seriously, is there a website you go to download the latest hairbrained scheme? i want to see it to see what other BS there is on there so that i can prepair for the next mad idea
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    mike ever seen this chart of nuclear binding energy?



    as you can see the binding energy DECREASES from iron to uranium
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Bettina
    I would be interested where you got the data that E = mc^2 is not credible. I can't find a reputable link anywhere and I would like to see one.

    However, I do have this from MIT that just over a year and a half ago the equation passed a very severe test. Here is the link.

    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/emc2.html

    Bettina
    I started to read this 'grandoise' scheme to prove Einstein right and quit reading it because, what does it have to do with the hydrogen atom?

    Can these two tell us 'HOW light is generated? And where do they see any decay generating the light we all see?

    All these complex experiments provide nothing but tiny miniscule corrections that can be 'mind manipulated'.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Guest
    Moved from cosmology/astronomy to here, reason: this does not [IMHO] conform to mainstream scientific opinion. Please PM me if anyone is unhappy.

    Thanx, MB.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: E=mc^2 (revised) 
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    E = mc^2 is not credible.
    ...
    Therefore, the Einstein mass/energy formula cannot be true because forces are the creators of the energies.
    I also see no reason for squaring the velocity of light. Light is a single ONE line dimension. So there is no reason for squaring this dimension that represents the time element of ‘one second’.
    Quote Originally Posted by "Mike NS2
    I started to read this 'grandoise' scheme to prove Einstein right and quit reading it because, what does it have to do with the hydrogen atom?
    how in gods name were you trying to prove him right? you said that the formula was incorrect at least twice, you think this is proving him correct? i think you need to come of pluto and get back to Earth
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by zelos
    most energy comes from the strong/weak nuclear force. ever looked at the bidning energy of a nucleus? the chart of all elements?
    Your atatement above just confirms what I have said.

    While the strong force contains the nuclei as 'potential' energy, the 'weak' force is the cause of the decay.
    This all involves the forces as the sources of energy.
    So where is the matter involved?

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: E=mc^2 (revised) 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    [quote=nevyn]
    Quote Originally Posted by "Mike NS2
    I started to read this 'grandoise' scheme to prove Einstein right and quit reading it because, what does it have to do with the hydrogen atom?
    how in gods name were you trying to prove him right? you said that the formula was incorrect at least twice, you think this is proving him correct? i think you need to come of pluto and get back to Earth
    You have misinterpreted what I said.
    It was the experiment posted by Bettina that I was referring to that was supposed to be proving the formula right.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Quote Originally Posted by zelos
    most energy comes from the strong/weak nuclear force. ever looked at the bidning energy of a nucleus? the chart of all elements?
    Your atatement above just confirms what I have said.

    While the strong force contains the nuclei as 'potential' energy, the 'weak' force is the cause of the decay.
    This all involves the forces as the sources of energy.
    So where is the matter involved?

    NS
    all energy is stored as matter. since the strong force is so much stronger than any other force and the matter so much less in a nucleus it gets to be seen more in atoms.until iron the "potensial" decreases so does the mass. after that it increases

    even in chemical reactions are energy stored as mass. its just so little it isnt noticble
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Junior Bettina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Quote Originally Posted by Bettina
    I would be interested where you got the data that E = mc^2 is not credible. I can't find a reputable link anywhere and I would like to see one.

    However, I do have this from MIT that just over a year and a half ago the equation passed a very severe test. Here is the link.

    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/emc2.html

    Bettina
    I started to read this 'grandoise' scheme to prove Einstein right and quit reading it because, what does it have to do with the hydrogen atom?

    Can these two tell us 'HOW light is generated? And where do they see any decay generating the light we all see?

    All these complex experiments provide nothing but tiny miniscule corrections that can be 'mind manipulated'.

    NS
    Your question was posed as .... "E = mc^2 is not credible". I answered with a link to show you that so far.... it IS credible.

    Bettina
    Emotionally based life form. The Fword will get you on my ignore list.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Bettina
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Quote Originally Posted by Bettina
    I would be interested where you got the data that E = mc^2 is not credible. I can't find a reputable link anywhere and I would like to see one.

    However, I do have this from MIT that just over a year and a half ago the equation passed a very severe test. Here is the link.

    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/emc2.html

    Bettina
    I started to read this 'grandoise' scheme to prove Einstein right and quit reading it because, what does it have to do with the hydrogen atom?

    Can these two tell us 'HOW light is generated? And where do they see any decay generating the light we all see?

    All these complex experiments provide nothing but tiny miniscule corrections that can be 'mind manipulated'.

    NS
    Your question was posed as .... "E = mc^2 is not credible". I answered with a link to show you that so far.... it IS credible.

    Bettina
    you sure did
    Mike im asking you as a, well call it a friend, enemy, what ever you want, but stop this and join the us who still got our sanity intact. You got 100 years of evidence against you.
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    mike ever seen this chart of nuclear binding energy?



    as you can see the binding energy DECREASES from iron to uranium
    So what does that prove? It merely shows that as the nuclei accumulate too many neutrons, the matter automatically decays.

    There is a limit for this and that is the 'atomic mass number 209 that is bismuth that is the heaviest element that is STABLE.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Bettina
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Quote Originally Posted by Bettina
    I would be interested where you got the data that E = mc^2 is not credible. I can't find a reputable link anywhere and I would like to see one.

    However, I do have this from MIT that just over a year and a half ago the equation passed a very severe test. Here is the link.

    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/emc2.html

    Bettina
    I started to read this 'grandoise' scheme to prove Einstein right and quit reading it because, what does it have to do with the hydrogen atom?

    Can these two tell us 'HOW light is generated? And where do they see any decay generating the light we all see?

    All these complex experiments provide nothing but tiny miniscule corrections that can be 'mind manipulated'.

    NS
    Your question was posed as .... "E = mc^2 is not credible". I answered with a link to show you that so far.... it IS credible.

    Bettina
    Look around you. Do you see any energy other than the light that is visible? Do you see the elements decay below the Earth where these radioactive elements are.

    I only deal with the reality we see, not some far out research that provides tiny solutions in the laboratories.

    After all, the BBU is supported the same way.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Look around you. Do you see any energy other than the light that is visible? Do you see the elements decay below the Earth where these radioactive elements are.

    I only deal with the reality we see, not some far out research that provides tiny solutions in the laboratories.

    After all, the BBU is supported the same way.

    NS
    thermal energy is visible, you heat up a metal and it glows metal. POP. there goes another vabulous theory (cough)
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    880
    oops that's supposed to say glows red
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Quote Originally Posted by zelos
    most energy comes from the strong/weak nuclear force. ever looked at the bidning energy of a nucleus? the chart of all elements?
    Your atatement above just confirms what I have said.

    While the strong force contains the nuclei as 'potential' energy, the 'weak' force is the cause of the decay.
    This all involves the forces as the sources of energy.
    So where is the matter involved?

    NS
    all energy is stored as matter. since the strong force is so much stronger than any other force and the matter so much less in a nucleus it gets to be seen more in atoms.until iron the "potensial" decreases so does the mass. after that it increases

    even in chemical reactions are energy stored as mass. its just so little it isnt noticble
    Matter and energy are NOT the SAME, period.

    The basic form of matter, the electron and the proton, that constitutes the HA, is indestuctible as the Law of Conservation implies.

    The energy here is the result of the coulomb force that causes the electron to circle the proton. The energy here is in the motion of the electron, not the electron itself. There is a difference.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    oops that's supposed to say glows red
    So, what does that prove? The transfer of energy from one medium to another? Remove the heat and it radiates it back out into space.

    The same thing happens in the HA where the electron absorbs a photon and than reradiates it.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    880
    you said that there is no other energy that is visible, thermal energy is visible, it will make metal glow read.

    Matter is the stored form of energy, In the beginning the BB saw the creation of the universe, the photons and and some of the energy become quarks and hadrons, these form the protons and electons and nuetrons, which formed the atoms. therefore matter and energy are not that different
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    mike ever seen this chart of nuclear binding energy?



    as you can see the binding energy DECREASES from iron to uranium
    So what does that prove? It merely shows that as the nuclei accumulate too many neutrons, the matter automatically decays.

    There is a limit for this and that is the 'atomic mass number 209 that is bismuth that is the heaviest element that is STABLE.

    NS
    the binding energy shows that it isnt coulumd force giving the energy for a atom bomb. but mass.

    Matter and energy are NOT the SAME, period.
    matter and energy is the SAME, period. you cant say period with evidence against you.

    The basic form of matter, the electron and the proton, that constitutes the HA, is indestuctible as the Law of Conservation implies.
    conservation of what? energy? momentum? mass? the mass/energy conservation is the same conservation law and momentum is allways conserved. end of discussion.


    mike you got enough evidence against you to make this discussion useless.
    i think that science would most likly qualify you mad and take you in for psykological examination if they heard of this.

    Mike tell me what drives the sun? where does it get its energy from?
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by zelos
    Mike tell me what drives the sun? where does it get its energy from?
    My opinion is that the initial stages of the stars (Sun) creations is the gravitational attraction of a cloud of gas (hydrogen) that begins to heat up to a point that the HA's heat separates the atoms to form a plasma were some electrons 'SKIP' to the outer edges of these forming stars to ENHANCE the gravitational effect with the coulomb attraction between these separated charges to greatly increase this compression or condensation where in the central reagion the plasma and remaing electrons move at extremely high velocities to generate very high energy photons that radiate through the star medium to the surface where these photons are transformed from the high energy photons to the visible light that we see.
    All this involves forces that eventually couple two protons and an electron to form 'dueterons'. These deuterons than couple magnetically as bipolar magnets to form the helium nuclei.

    Durig this entire process, the magnetic forces are the most active in creating the photons and the formation of the deuterons and helium nuclei.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    so you go with fusion but the deterium got less mass than the sum of it particles, where did the mass go?

    All this involves forces that eventually couple two protons and an electron to form 'dueterons'
    this is not true. it doesnt work like that. its 2 protons becomes a biproton wich one of them turns to a neutron in wich a positron is radiated.

    Durig this entire process, the magnetic forces are the most active in creating the photons and the formation of the deuterons and helium nuclei.
    magnetic force? the magnetic force isnt strong enough to do this, its the high temperature and pressure that makes fusion possible to generate the energy. why we got light is cause of plancks old black body radiation formula (with some minor modifications)
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    so you go with fusion but the deterium got less mass than the sum of it particles, where did the mass go?

    All this involves forces that eventually couple two protons and an electron to form 'dueterons'
    this is not true. it doesnt work like that. its 2 protons becomes a biproton wich one of them turns to a neutron in wich a positron is radiated.

    Durig this entire process, the magnetic forces are the most active in creating the photons and the formation of the deuterons and helium nuclei.
    magnetic force? the magnetic force isnt strong enough to do this, its the high temperature and pressure that makes fusion possible to generate the energy. why we got light is cause of plancks old black body radiation formula (with some minor modifications)
    The deuterons are composed of an electron between two protons with the electron and one proton acting as a neutron. Neutrons CANNOT be created without the presence of another proton. That is the only way they can be considered stable.
    The deuteron composition then has an electron between the two protons that is coupled by the coulomb force and the spinning protons create powerfut magnetic fields to enhance the coulomb attraction.
    That is your STRONG force.
    This composition weighs less than the two protons and the electron separately because it appears to weigh less, because of the nature of the collective componets.

    A neuitron weighs more than the HA and it decays into a HA that weighs less.
    How do you explain that?

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    The deuterons are composed of an electron between two protons with the electron and one proton acting as a neutron.
    got any experimental proof of that? i do have for that not bieng trou

    Neutrons CANNOT be created without the presence of another proton
    neutrons can exist without an proton but is stable in the nucleus

    The deuteron composition then has an electron between the two protons that is coupled by the coulomb force and the spinning protons create powerfut magnetic fields to enhance the coulomb attraction.
    i do remember you saying this and as i recall i did calculations and guess what? it doesnt work.
    Youre theory is flawn by itself

    That is your STRONG force.
    nope, thats not it you got it all wrong, this is an exempel of what happens when crackpots are allowed in science.

    A neuitron weighs more than the HA and it decays into a HA that weighs less.
    How do you explain that?
    i assume you mean neutron and with HA you mean hydrogen atom, you should then only write H.

    i think that question is pretty self answering so i wont. if you are as smart as you think you should be able to figure that out yourself
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Zelos

    How do you explain the changes in the weight of the neutrons in combination with a proton and separately in a temporary free state?

    Its weight in the deuteron coupling is less than in the free state?

    This gives you an idea that these weights are variable in different circumstances.

    This gives the mass/energy formula less credibility because the mass here is not constant.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    How do you explain the changes in the weight of the neutrons in combination with a proton and separately in a temporary free state?
    mass: the same way the electron and quarks, they just have their mass. a down quark weights more than a up quark as you probably dont know
    why it only exist free temporary is for the same reason that nucleuses and other exotic particles only exist temporary. cause they can reach a lower more stable energy state.

    This gives the mass/energy formula less credibility because the mass here is not constant
    it gives it credibility just cause of it since mass dont have to be the same all time and no one ever said it had to.
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    How do you explain the changes in the weight of the neutrons in combination with a proton and separately in a temporary free state?
    mass: the same way the electron and quarks, they just have their mass. a down quark weights more than a up quark as you probably dont know
    why it only exist free temporary is for the same reason that nucleuses and other exotic particles only exist temporary. cause they can reach a lower more stable energy state.

    This gives the mass/energy formula less credibility because the mass here is not constant
    it gives it credibility just cause of it since mass dont have to be the same all time and no one ever said it had to.
    Well, I disagree. I consider mass to be stable in the electron and protons.
    I also consider the coulomb force to be stable.

    These adjustments in mass seem like corrections to follow the actual experiments for including the quarks as real particles to comply to the neutron variations.
    When a neutron decays, one quark changes it nature also. Why does that quark change?

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •