Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Ampere's law derives speed; is magnetic current density rest-mass?
Chapt13.4.05 rest-mass #1032 New Physics #1152 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Replies: 1   Last Post: Nov 26, 2012 3:40 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com

Posts: 9,561
Registered: 3/31/08
I suspect rest-mass is not a fundamental property but acquired
Chapt13.4.05 rest-mass #1033 New Physics #1153 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Posted: Nov 26, 2012 3:40 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Nov 25, 2:00 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Faraday law also derives speed. The Ampere law gives the speed of
> the light wave or photon. The Faraday law gives the speed of the
> electron and proton.
>
> In this textbook, the speed of light has to be a double transverse
> wave in order for the various wavelengths of light to all have one and
> the same speed of light. A single-transverse wave does not allow a
> constant speed but a varying speed from radio waves to gamma rays.
>
> But this textbook should show how the electron rest mass is about 2000
> times less than the proton. And the answer should be that the proton
> is 2000 times less of space occupying than the electron occupies
> space. The Faraday law of the bar magnet in motion inside a closed
> loop wire should provide that 2000 times larger space differential for
> electron over the proton.
>
> You see, when physics is done correctly, it all comes out of the axiom
> set, the Maxwell Equations. When physics is done falsely, then you get
> a group of men sitting around in ivory towers dreaming up mechanisms
> like the Higgs mechanism which is sheer crankery nonsense.
>
> When physics or mathematics is done properly, the axiom set of that
> science derives all the science. The science is never dependent on
> some crank crackpot in an ivory tower with his latest nonsense.
>



Now with the Symmetrical Maxwell Equations as the axioms over all of
physics, those axioms derives all of physics, and so it should not be
surprising to find that the Strong Nuclear Force is just merely a EM
force of a chemical bonding between protons and neutrons. The distance
spacing of chemical bonds is about a million times further apart than
the distance of protons with neutrons and the binding energy of a
chemical bond is a million times less than the strong-nuclear-force.
So we see that
distance x force strength of a chemical bond is equal to distance x
force strength of strong nuclear force. Strong nuclear force is just a
chemical bond that is 10^6 closer.

With my success on the strong-nuclear force, I have the suspicion
that rest-mass of electron versus proton is duplicated in chemistry,
and electrochemistry to be more clear. Now I am researching
electrochemistry to see if I can wiggle out a number of 1836 rather
than for strong-nuclear force the number was 10^6.

One of my favorite chemistry textbooks is this one:

--- quoting from
Electrochemistry from Oxtoby Nachtrieb "Principles of Modern
Chemistry" 1990 page 360

1. In any cell, the mass of a given substance that is produced or
consumed at an electrode is proportional to the quantity of electric
charge passed through the cell.
2. Equivalent masses^1 of different substances are produced or
consumed at an electrode by the passage of a given quantity of
electric charge through the cell.

--- end quoting from Oxtoby Nachtrieb ---

Now one must realize the Faraday law of Maxwell Equations is something
else than what Oxtoby and Nachtrieb describe as the Faraday law.
Perhaps they should have been more diplomatic and called it the
Faraday Chemistry law, not to confuse with Maxwell Equations.

So what I am going to explore in the next few days is whether I can
squeeze out of electrochemistry a number of 1836, for I believe the
rest-mass of the electron and proton are not innate properties but are
acquired properties and that in future experiments we can get a
different rest-mass depending on the experimental set-up. But the
experimental set-up that gave us 0.5 and 938 MeV for electron and
proton, in the future, I suspect we can get a 0.4 and 734 MeV in some
new experimental set-up, because I suspect rest-mass is dependent on
the experimental arrangement and not on the actual characteristics of
the electron or proton.

Just as the spin of electron and proton are borne out of the action of
the Ampere law on a group of electrons and a group of protons and not
due to some property innate to a proton or electron.

Since the speed of light is created from the Maxwell Equations, the
Ampere law, then speed is not a fundamental property but acquired and
so should the rest-mass.

So the only truly fundamental property in physics is charge. With
charge alone, the Maxwell Equations then produce the features of rest-
mass, spin, speed.

So physics would have what mathematicians call "primitive notions",
physics would have just a few primitive notions-- atom, electron,
proton, photon, neutrino and charge and all the other properties are
begot from the Maxwell Equations.


Google's New-Newsgroups censors AP posts and halted a proper
archiving ?of author, but Drexel's Math Forum does not and my posts
in ?archive ?form is seen here:

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies




Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.