I agree but is this really all independent and irrelatvant for gravity? Now, this division beteen motion and mass is the same as KE and PE. And E is the sum of these two, and it is directly realted to gravity.Originally Posted by baudrunner
I agree but is this really all independent and irrelatvant for gravity? Now, this division beteen motion and mass is the same as KE and PE. And E is the sum of these two, and it is directly realted to gravity.Originally Posted by baudrunner
The sum of the squares of the spin for each particle. If you accept with the idea of spin in quantum mechanics then it is stipulated that the neutrinos ar spin-1/2 fermions and the photon are spin-1 bosons. Add 4 squares of 1/2 give the square of 1.Originally Posted by dleviwing
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
I dont want to get in a mess over mass,but can mass be independant of thought
and if so,I would be grateful for an explanation.Great topic though.
kind regards michel.
Humilty,coupled with boldness,surprises truth to
reveal herself?
Mass is a type of energy and also is thought. Thought is presentedin many types of energies in fact. According to Antonio, a thought could be a graviton, or a photon, or an electron. If the thought is a graviton (and I don't know when it is so, nor what woudl it mean), then I guess mass is NOT independent of thought.
That is avery good answer my friendOriginally Posted by <<>>
you can go to the top of the class,and get threegold stars,thank you.
regardsmichael
Humilty,coupled with boldness,surprises truth to
reveal herself?
No. It is more of a dependence. Thought is energy as Guille said. But when the waves of energy are out of phase mass is created and the energy becomes concentrated and localized and no more radiation (not exactly true because of blackbody radiation and the existence of temperature).Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
Spin is an intrinsic value like charge. Summing the squares is meaningless.Originally Posted by AntonioLao
David![]()
Point taken. However, the square of a physical appears in various guises in Coulomb's inverse square law: the square of charge; in Newton's law of universal gravitation: square of mass; in Dirac's theory of electron of relativistic wave equation: the square of energy. In the kinetic theory of heat: the square of velocity; etc.Originally Posted by dleviwing
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)