Science Forums

# Unification Of The Forces, A New Aproach

## Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

What mass ?

What you're probably asking about is the electromagnetic radiation momentum, E=hv=mc^2, but the mass would be in the form of momentum until the strain from wavelength down to zero distance is creating a curvature for the mass of the momentum.

No

All Electromagnetic Energy has a source and that source is from a Physical object , Galaxies , Quasars and Stars etc .

Magnetic Fields , Light , All come from a Physical object . Mass .

Edited by current
• Replies 92
• Created

#### Popular Posts

Particles and waves are part of the wave-particle duality, all electrons and protons and all mass, even planets have a DeBroglie wavelength (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave#de_Broglie_hypoth

What mass ?

No

All Electromagnetic Energy has a source and that source is from a Physical object , Galaxies , Quasars and Stars etc .

Magnetic Fields , Light , All come from a Physical object . Mass .

Mass is a curvature, which is what I've been explaining, E = hv = Ke^2/r = mc^2, I'm demonstrating that curvature, but no not all magnetic fields and light come from mass, as is the case with antenna radiation, etc. Hydro-electric works off of mass and gravity, but batteries work off of electromagnetic energies. Chemical reactions. And in an antenna that creates EM waves, it fluctuates charge.

But yes mass gives off radiation also, which is why mass and momentum of electromagnetic radiation are so closely related, but you can say this instead of mass:

E = mc^2 = p/c*f^2(r-0)^2

Now that momentum is transformed into mass as a curvature similar to how gravitation reflects a matter curvature.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Mass is a curvature, which is what I've been explaining, E = hv = Ke^2/r = mc^2, I'm demonstrating that curvature

Mass is Not About Curvature .

The essence of the mass is Physical . A Real Physical Object .

Mass is the essence of any curvature . Without Mass there is No curvature .No magnetic field , No light , No Electric Current .

Edited by current
##### Share on other sites

The essence of the mass is Physical . A Real Physical Object .

Mass is the essence of any curvature . Without Mass there is No curvature .

That may not necessarily be true. What I've established with my theory and therefore math is that charge may be a curvature, a hill where like objects repel, and that mass is a valley where like objects attract, sort off a positive and negative pressure.

Empirical data shows a curvature reduction in the mass from the electric binding energy of electrons in hydrogen, indicating a possible curvature, unless we just assume E=mc^2, then also perhaps E=mc^2=Ke^2/r.

And what if that curvature is steep enough to create a wall effect?, But a real physical object is the illusion of electromagnetic forces in atoms and molecules, you touch a table top and your hand stops, why? It's because of the electromagnetic forces in the atoms and molecules, so what is a real physical object?

But in my theory I related a radius strain that relates the hill of charge energy to the valley of mass energy thru establishing a relationship between hc and Ke^2.

##### Share on other sites

current, on 30 Aug 2020 - 4:42 PM, said:

The essence of the mass is Physical . A Real Physical Object .

Mass is the essence of any curvature . Without Mass there is No curvature .

That may not necessarily be true. What I've established with my theory and therefore math is that charge may be a curvature, a hill where like objects repel, and that mass is a valley where like objects attract, sort off a positive and negative pressure.

Empirical data shows a curvature reduction in the mass from the electric binding energy of electrons in hydrogen, indicating a possible curvature, unless we just assume E=mc^2, then also perhaps E=mc^2=Ke^2/r.

And what if that curvature is steep enough to create a wall effect?, But a real physical object is the illusion of electromagnetic forces in atoms and molecules, you touch a table top and your hand stops, why? It's because of the electromagnetic forces in the atoms and molecules, so what is a real physical object?

But in my theory I related a radius strain that relates the hill of charge energy to the valley of mass energy thru establishing a relationship between hc and Ke^2.

What curvature reduction , devon ?

What is the physical mechanism that produces the curvature in the first place ?

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

What curvature reduction , devon ?

What is the physical mechanism that produces the curvature in the first place ?

The mass of the hydrogen atom is not the sum of its constituents, it is exactly Ke^2/r less, indicating that the matter curvature (hill as I describe it) of the electric energy is reducing the matter, in fact any change in orbital changes the mass of an atom. The electrons orbit at a distance, and that electrical energy of the electrons orbiting the protons reduces the mass of the parts, such that the atoms weigh less. That is a curvature or mass reduction they call binding energy. You probably already are aware there is nuclear binding energy and orbital binding energy of electrons, both reduce the mass, but in the case of some of the isotopes the electrical is increased, especially between two protons as a positive energy.

Anyways, what is a curvature in the first place? You take space-time and compress or expand it and it forms a curvature, which is represented by a radius deformation strain, as I have demonstrated mathematically.

But where are all these curvature energies originating from, for that I will choose the Christian answer and say the spirit of God moved upon the waters and said let there be light and compressed space time to form galaxies. Perhaps my theory demonstrates that concept.

And what is the electron mass, well any mass in relation to non-existent zero mass is infinite in magnitude, it's a divide by zero, if we take the electron mass and divide it by the a smaller mass we get a ratio, a ratio which grows the smaller the reference mass we're dividing by, then reach zero, and the electron mass becomes an infinite value above that. So I used Riemann zeta and related the point particle mass to electromagnetic energies, and perhaps that's all that is needed, an infinite Riemann zeta -3 density.

Edited by devin553344
##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The mass of the hydrogen atom is not the sum of its constituents, it is exactly Ke^2/r less, indicating that the matter curvature (hill as I describe it) of the electric energy is reducing the matter, in fact any change in orbital changes the mass of an atom. The electrons orbit at a distance, and that electrical energy of the electrons orbiting the protons reduces the mass of the parts, such that the atoms weigh less. That is a curvature or mass reduction they call binding energy. You probably already are aware there is nuclear binding energy and orbital binding energy of electrons, both reduce the mass, but in the case of some of the isotopes the electrical is increased, especially between two protons as a positive energy.

Anyways, what is a curvature in the first place? You take space-time and compress or expand it and it forms a curvature, which is represented by a radius deformation strain, as I have demonstrated mathematically.

But where are all these curvature energies originating from, for that I will choose the Christian answer and say the spirit of God moved upon the waters and said let there be light and compressed space time to form galaxies. Perhaps my theory demonstrates that concept.

And what is the electron mass, well any mass in relation to non-existent zero mass is infinite in magnitude, it's a divide by zero, if we take the electron mass and divide it by the a smaller mass we get a ratio, a ratio which grows the smaller the reference mass we're dividing by, then reach zero, and the electron mass becomes an infinite value above that. So I used Riemann zeta and related the point particle mass to electromagnetic energies, and perhaps that's all that is needed, an infinite Riemann zeta -3 density.

But Why does and How does , Electric Current Reduce the Mass ? And then where does this mass go .

Edited by current
##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

But why does Electric Current Reduce the Mass ?

Well it's not current, it's escape energy, Ke^2/r, but exactly the question I asked, Einstein said all energy was matter E=mc^2, so heat energy, electric energy, and all forms are curvatures in essence. That's what Einstein said as far as I understand it, and that's what I'm going to re-enforce, if I did. And why would a positive curvature reduce a negative curvature or vice versa?

For that consider wave cancellation, when a positive (hill) and negative (valley) wave undulation pass directly thru each other, they cancel out. That in effect could reduce the mass. I'm not totally sure about that, but so far it's calculated to Imirical data that I've seen.

A positive and negative charge as -Ke^2/r reduce the mass and a positive and positive charge increase the mass which is +Ke^2/r.

Edit: so maybe charge is not a hill? But its energy can be.

Edited by devin553344
##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

current, on 30 Aug 2020 - 5:26 PM, said:

But why does Electric Current Reduce the Mass ?

Well it's not current, it's escape energy, Ke^2/r, but exactly the question I asked, Einstein said all energy was matter E=mc^2, so heat energy, electric energy, and all forms are curvatures in essence. That's what Einstein said as far as I understand it, and that's what I'm going to re-enforce, if I did. And why would a positive curvature reduce a negative curvature or vice versa?

For that consider wave cancellation, when a positive (hill) and negative (valley) wave undulation pass directly thru each other, they cancel out. That in effect could reduce the mass. I'm not totally sure about that, but so far it's calculated to Imirical data that I've seen.

A positive and negative charge as -Ke^2/r reduce the mass and a positive and positive charge increase the mass which is +Ke^2/r.

Edit: so maybe charge is not a hill? But its energy can be.

For that consider wave cancellation, when a positive (hill) and negative (valley) wave undulation pass directly thru each other, they cancel out. That in effect could reduce the mass. I'm not totally sure about that, but so far it's calculated to Imirical data that I've seen.

But it doesn't . Through each other but not annihilate each other . There is no burst of energy because they go through each other . Edited by current
##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

But it doesn't . Through each other but not annihilate each other . There is no burst of energy because they go through each other .

Well it's an analogy of waves. And that is a good question. I'll have to think about it, but mass energy, whether a hill or valley is spring loaded, whether by Hooke's law mechanism or strain energies. If my theory is correct.

What I would suggest is having a two part wave undulation, a crest and valley, then separate them, you've now created separate energy potentials, like a ball atop a hill, when released rolls down with kinetic energy. Likewise, a crest and valley when come into contact annihilate and are released as a vibration or photon with the period that matches the wavelength of the energy or E=hv. The result is a cancellation or flat portion, and the remains are two wave halves one crest the other valley. Considering equal magnitude crest and valley. But I think that would work for magnitudes that are not equal also.

Edited by devin553344
##### Share on other sites

But it doesn't . Through each other but not annihilate each other . There is no burst of energy because they go through each other .

Energy is neither created nor destroyed, so the crest and valley flatten out in the mass and are released as two photons? I think that is a better explanation.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

But it doesn't . Through each other but not annihilate each other . There is no burst of energy because they go through each other .

I should also say this, as the wave halves pass thru each other there appears a flat portion, but what emerges after the flat is gone is the original energy, similar to matter reduction releasing a photon.

Edited by devin553344
##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well it's an analogy of waves. And that is a good question. I'll have to think about it, but mass energy, whether a hill or valley is spring loaded, whether by Hooke's law mechanism or strain energies. If my theory is correct.

What I would suggest is having a two part wave undulation, a crest and valley, then separate them, you've now created separate energy potentials, like a ball atop a hill, when released rolls down with kinetic energy. Likewise, a crest and valley when come into contact annihilate and are released as a vibration or photon with the period that matches the wavelength of the energy or E=hv. The result is a cancellation or flat portion, and the remains are two wave halves one crest the other valley. Considering equal magnitude crest and valley. But I think that would work for magnitudes that are not equal also.

Mass though is not a wave . Mass is particle based . Not waved based .

Edited by current
##### Share on other sites

Mass though is not a wave . Mass is a particle .

Particles and waves are part of the wave-particle duality, all electrons and protons and all mass, even planets have a DeBroglie wavelength (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave#de_Broglie_hypothesis) (That DeBroglie wavelength has been proven even with Alpha particles in particle accelerators) and particles have an annihilation Compton wavelength (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality) So they're considered to be particles and waves.

Annihilation of an electron and positron can be considered the same as binding energy, where the crest and valley flatten space somewhat to the new energy level, and out comes a crest and valley wave since energy is neither created nor destroyed.

Did you study particle physics and what they found in particle accelerator experiments using electrons, protons and alpha particles, all were shown to have a wavelength equal to r=h/p?

##### Share on other sites

Particles and waves are part of the wave-particle duality, all electrons and protons and all mass, even planets have a DeBroglie wavelength (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave#de_Broglie_hypothesis) (That DeBroglie wavelength has been proven even with Alpha particles in particle accelerators) and particles have an annihilation Compton wavelength (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality) So they're considered to be particles and waves.

Annihilation of an electron and positron can be considered the same as binding energy, where the crest and valley flatten space somewhat to the new energy level, and out comes a crest and valley wave since energy is neither created nor destroyed.

Did you study particle physics and what they found in particle accelerator experiments using electrons, protons and alpha particles, all were shown to have a wavelength equal to r=h/p?

What kind of waves were they ?

##### Share on other sites

What kind of waves were they ?

Matter waves, so they would have to be either crest or valley, depending on particle or antiparticle, take a look here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave). But during pair production of an electron and positron, an inbound electromagnetic wave with the Compton wavelength of the electron-positron energy or greater impacts near the nucleus and splits in half (in my ideas) and each half is a wave crest and valley which transforms into a particle also (not that photons aren't already particles because they are). But somehow the momentum wave is transformed into a matter wave. And matter and momentum are so closely related that Planck's constant is used to describe both matter waves and momentum waves.

So I propose that matter is a radius strain as a curvature, I also support the idea that Planck's constant represents a curvature also of some type. But that the propagation of matter waves and momentum waves is different, such that matter waves are relativistic while momentum waves are not.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Matter waves, so they would have to be either crest or valley, depending on particle or antiparticle, take a look here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave). But during pair production of an electron and positron, an inbound electromagnetic wave with the Compton wavelength of the electron-positron energy or greater impacts near the nucleus and splits in half (in my ideas) and each half is a wave crest and valley which transforms into a particle also (not that photons aren't already particles because they are). But somehow the momentum wave is transformed into a matter wave. And matter and momentum are so closely related that Planck's constant is used to describe both matter waves and momentum waves.

So I propose that matter is a radius strain as a curvature, I also support the idea that Planck's constant represents a curvature also of some type. But that the propagation of matter waves and momentum waves is different, such that matter waves are relativistic while momentum waves are not.

Where does the " inbound electromagnetic wave originate from ? What is the source ?

How do matter waves propagate with no momentum ?

Edited by current

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.