[cosvis]

Hi Nobody and all,

Most scientists would probably agree with you that photons and gravitons have the same reference, both have spin 1. But I think, we have a different understandings when you say that photons and gravitons have the same mass as electrons and positrons. I agree with you when you say they have the same mass in the sense that they are all made up of the same quanta particles. Howerver, to my understanding, a photon consists of a bundle of quanta particles, depending on its frequency. Light is a photon and there can be different coloured lights dependings on its wavelength and frequency. Red light would have a lower number of frequency but its wavelength be longer than blue light which would have a higher number of frequency. Electrons and positrons both would have a fixed mass depending on its non zero mass which I think would be far greater than any photon. Electrons and positrons would however, gain in both mass and energy as they gain in speed.

I am not quite sure what you mean when you say that "electrons looses mass and gains in energy." To my understanding of Einstein's special law of relativity, an object gains mass and energy as it gains speed. The faster it moves, it requires more energy and as it gains in energy it will also gain in mass. Thus a non zero mass object would never be able to reach the speed of light because the energy required for it to reach the speed of light would tend towards infinity and its mass also would increase to infinity. This is impossible and that is why Einstein was able to deduce the principle that nothing can move faster than the speed of light.

I am sure photons, gravitons, electrons and positrons are all interconnected as they are with all other sub atomic particles and forces. Our great quest is to find a symmetrical interconnection with all and a good means, I think, would be to use the wave theory as you mentioned above in a formed reply.

Yours Cosvis.

[N0B0DY]

I think we're referring to two different scenarios, Cosvis. I use empirical science as the basis for theoretical light-as-gravity (LAG) theory, where the repeatable experiments imply certain energies are required for the creation of electrons and positrons solely through a kinetic means - which is much greater than the rest masses beause their velocities decrease. As the electrons' speed increases their rest masses don't increase, but their kinetic energy - relativisitc mass - increases as their masses evaporate due to the increase in heat.

Just like a black hole evaporates its mass in the form of high-energy photons, the electrons would do the same because there an infinite amount of energy within the electron to allow it to reach the speed of light - and beyond - but at that point the massive object is light.

[cosvis]

Hi Nobody and all,

I think basically we are talking about the same reality but our way of expressing it, is different. I agree with you that the rest mass of lectrons and positrons do not increase in mass, but its kinetic or relativistic mass increases as the speed of the electrons and positrons increases.

Even your "Light as gravity (LAG)" theory, is acceptable but I would view it this way. Since photons are basically quanta particles and a quantum particle has two waves a gravitational and a kinetical, it has both kinetic energy and potential gravitational energy or a gravitational pull that attracts other particles.

I have difficulty of accepting the idea of an "infinite amount of energy within the electron." I am not quite sure what you mean? In my way of thinking, when an electron and a positron collide, their opposite electrical forces equal each other and the particles dispurse into quanta particles, which are photons.

In my TEEU theory, both the electrons and positrons are like black holes but with opposite electrical charges. They would attract each other both by gravity and and for their opposite charges. When they collide, their impact is so great that they destroy each other, and the result are quanta particles or photons.

Yours Cosvis.

[N0B0DY]

Cosvis,

I consider the whole of the universe to be a black-hole singularity, containing absolute potential energy. It can be represented as both one and zero, with infinite fractional charges, masses and energies in between. Now it is true that there is no literal between, and therefore is multiplied and divided an infinite number of times by default, of which - infinity - is the basis for relativity and perceptible change without changing the absolute state of the universe.

So reverting to the electron/positron, their point masses are synonymous to the "big-bang" singularity containing infinite energy, but the energy is shielded/cancelled by the counter-effective gravitational force.

[cosvis]

Hi Nobody and all,

Thank you for explaining to me your concept of the idea how electron/ positron point masses can contain infinite energy and how they are synonimous to the "big bank" singularity. Of course you realize that your concept of the universe is quite different from my concept as I try to explain here in this thread, the eternal evolving universe theory.

My theory is quite different from the big bang theory of the universe and I do not hold for the possibility of infinite energy, not even infinite potential energy, and the concept of a singularity.

The physical principle states that energy can not be created nor destroyed. If it can not be created than no more energy can increase the energy that already exists at this moment in the uninverse. I hold that the universe consists of a finite quantity of energy, the smallest form of energy being a quantum or Planck particle. These quanta particles are the basic constituents of all subatomic particles or matter like electrons or positrons, photons and even are the cause of the basic forces that govern the universe.

The singularity according to the Hutchinson Dictionary of Science: " is the point at the centre of a black hole at which it is predicted that the infinite gravitational forces will compress the infalling mass of a collapsing star to infinite density." To me this idea is just a hypothetical theory that can not be proven and I find it difficult to accept.

Taking any system of energy with revolving particles, it has a centre of gravity around which all the particles revolve. At the centre of gravity the gravitational potential energy of the system of energy is zero. The particles of the system of energy revolve around this centre of gravity until they slow down and thus fall nearer to the centre, until they stop moving. Similarly, a black hole is a system of energy which has a centre of gravity; and at its centre of energy its potential gravitational energy or force is zero. If this is so, than the masses even of a black hole can not collapse to infinite density; they may be able to collapse into its fundamental constituents, that is quanta particles, or pure energy, which by definition cannot be destroyed.

Yours Cosvis.

[cosvis]

Hi Nobody and all,

I find it difficult to accept the hypothesis or the idea that a singularity can be the origin of the universe, the point at which the expansion of the universe began, as it seems to be proposed by the big bang universe theory. Scientists even agree that at this point of infinite density, in zero space, the known laws of physics break down. If this is true, it means to me, that the idea of a singularity is outside the realm of physical science because physical science can only deal with what is known, what can be measured and what follows physical laws.

To me if the idea of a singularity is true than it must be smaller than a quantum or Planck particle which is the smallest known particle of energy. To me, a singularity has no energy, it is only an idea, how then can it have infinite energy? Where does the enrgy come from to be the origin of the universe. It certainly could not have come from nothing because logic tells us, nothing can come from nothing.

If on the otherhand you say that God created it from nothing then it is not a question of science but one of theology which may be true, but it would fall outside our discussion here. I feel the idea of a singularity has no physical reality, it is just an hypothesis which should be discarded.

Yours Cosvis.

[dleviwing]

covis;
We talk about center of mass or center of gravity as if it were the physical location at the center of an object. If we were to bore a hole to the center of the Earth what effect would gravity have as we approach the central core? (ignoring the obstacles of molten rock of course) Remember that as we go toward the center, we progressively have a greater mass behind us and thus our relative center of mass is changing. This is why Jules Vern’s “Journey To The Center Of The Earth” portrays a hollow central core were everything is pulled upward toward the Earth’s surface.

The gravitational force does not go into the atomic structure of an atom beyond the electro weak force; thus every atom is a center of gravity unit. In effect science is saying that a singularity is such a unit of matter of such great mass that gravity does not go beyond its surface.

[cosvis]

Hi David and all,

I am not sure David, whether you are saying that the center of mass is the same as the center of gravity? I suppose they can be the same because mass is basically made up of quanta particles, even if it is only a proton, neutron or electron particle. When coming to the universe I prefer to talk about the center of gravity because according to Einstein's general theory of relativity, all material things in the universe are relative to one another, they are in constant motion even the quanta particles. Thus even at the center of the universe or of a black hole, there exist constant movement and not something sitting still at rest.

It is of interest to me to learn that the gravitational force is not observable beyond the electro weak force in a subatomic particle like the neutron. This may be true but it does not exclude the opperation of gravity beyond that point. According to the eternal evolving universe theory, gravity opperates in the very smallest particle of energy, the quantum particle since it speculates that it is composed of two equal but opposite kinetical and gravitational energies and forces.

Yours Cosvis.

[dleviwing]

Hi covis;
I can only assume that when you say quantum particle that you are referring to a photon or some other member of the boson family. I do not see how you can relate such units to gravity; they are energy units, not physical ones.

[cosvis]

Hi David and all,

According to the Eternal Evolving Universe Theory (EEUT), the smallest constituent of matter is a quantum particle or a Planck particle, which is the smallest particle of energy. A photon is a bundel of quanta particles depending on its frequency. E = f h , where E stands for the quantity of energy; f stands for the fequency of a photon; and h stands for the Planck constant.

Photons travel at the speed of light; they have zero rest mass consisting of a quantum of electromagnetic radiation. The photons must explain the photo-electric effect speculated and shown to be correct by Einstein. From this photo-electric effect we know that the photon has some particle properties; it must have some kinetic energy.

But we also know from the speculation of Einstein that light coming from distant galaxies passing a gravitational object like the sun, is gravitationally affected by its gravity. Since it is gravitationally affected by gravity, it must have have a gravitational element. Since a photon does not have rest mass because it always moves at the speed of light, it never the less has some form of mass which I called virtual mass. Virtual mass has the same affect as gravity.

We know from Einstein that: E = M c^2, energy is the mass time the square of the speed of light. If energy is also E = f h; than we can speculate that (v M ) = ( f h ) / c^2; Since the photon however, has no rest mass, its mass can be assumed to be virtual (v M ).

I speculated that a quantum particle consists of two equal but opposite gravitational and kinetic energies and forces. These two forces and energies are like two equal but opposing waves, they move at the speed of light and have a gravitational effect on other particles.

Yours Cosvis.