[Profpat]

Sorry for the confusion Aaron. Yes I meant no charge.

Best,

Pat

[damccut]

Pat, I feel you may be capable of understanding most if not all of what is contained in my book Ultrawave Theory, but since you didn't reply in my thread you must have either not looked at the site, or just dismissed it. Another forum I visited before coming here immediately derided it without the benefit of even reading it first. The problem I have to deal with is the necessity of having someone drop what they believe for a time and give the work the benefit of the doubt until it is all assimilated. Using current beliefs is like comparing apples and oranges; you just can't believe it is possibly true without being able to do that. Believe me, I would have been just as likely to dismiss this sort of thing as hokum until I actually got into the math and found that it works perfectly to describe particles. All I ask is that you read it if and when you have time.

Sorry for interupting here, but a lot of what you guys are discussing is explained more thoroughly in the book, such as photons having mass, the misguided idea of rest mass versus moving mass versus energy.

[Profpat]

I apologize you are right I have not read it yet but promise I will.

Best,

Pat

[Mohan.C]

When it is said massless, I think it means it does not exist as a separate entity. A photon is the energy difference between two electrons. It is a difference so it need not exist as a separate entity. It comes into picture only when there is an interaction between the particles of which it is a part. So the force is because of the difference and the difference is in energy or mass.

[damccut]

Originally Posted by Profpat I apologize you are right I have not read it yet but promise I will. Best, Pat

What more can a guy ask for? Thanks.

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by damccut What more can a guy ask for? Thanks.

Hi damccut;

I did go to your ultrawave theory web site and made a copy and read your summary of the 19 chapters in your book.

Unfortunately. I guess, I'm an accounting professor and not a physics professor. Because of this short coming I couldn't fully understand or comprehend your summary. There does appear to be much thought behind your chapters however.

I would suggest having a physicist, and not an accountant, to review your book who would have the proper understanding and comprehension to be a critic.

Additionally, I rarely download anything to my computer. Good luck on your toequest and perhaps you have found it.

Best to you,

Pat

[Tina]

Originally Posted by JamesANicholson I have a theory that I will post in the appropriate Thread for all to pick over. So, where is the problem with this whole division by zero nonsense coming from? This is a part of my theory--a Big part or it, so, argue me out of it right now, if you can, before I get started, and save me the embarrassment. Please! Or better yet, tell me, by golly, Aaron's onto something here. That's weird. Referring to myself in the third person. I promise never to do that again. Good luck, Aaron Shoot, I did it again. Ha.

I can't wait for your Forum Topic to be posted - cause Aaron's onto something here!

The real nature of "zero" is one of my pet interests. To me the problem is conceptual rather than literal but one description of "Zero" is the position of equalibrium....from which things can be measured.

At an atomic level the Neurton (0) is not a actually zero/nothing charge it has stabalising influence in the whole dynamic between (+) Protons and (-) Electrons and brings all things back towards equalibrium.

[Tina]

Originally Posted by Profpat Hi Aaron; You do believe in zero charge though, don't you? Pat

I regard perceived 'zero' charge as a "neutralised or stabalised" charge whereby the flow of electrons is held in check....producing an energy that holds equalibrium/balance...and then the flow of elctrons is the imbalance of this state. The idea of zero/nil charge I just cannot comprehend....neutral charge makes more sense.