mass independence

[AntonioLao]

It can be shown by simple derivations that the repulsive primary force is mass independent. On the other hand it is dependent on the conserved local infinitesimal acceleration of a binary group of space-time points such that the inner product of these quanta of acceleration and the local metric is Lorentz invariant with constant magnitude given by square of light speed.

Starting from Newton’s 2nd law of motion the force F1 due to mass m1 is given by F1=m1a1 where a1 is the inertial acceleration. The force due to m2 is then F2=m2a2. Since the primary forces are equal then F1= F2. This implies that m1a1=m2a2 or m1/m2=a2/a1. Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence implies that E1/E2=m1/m2. Furthermore, if E1 and E2 are respectively the potentials of F1 and F2 then it is also true that E1=r1▪F1 and E2=r2▪F2 therefore (a1▪r1)▪F1=(a2▪r2)▪F2. This is an equation containing triple inner products of vectors. For it to be true one of the inner products is invalid. Since the product of the first would already be a scalar the second inner product would then not be meaningful. The products can be chosen such that a1▪r1= a2▪r2=c and upholding F1= F2.

Since the equation contains only the metric and quantized acceleration, it can be used to establish the validity of Mach’s principle without a definition for mass for the equivalence of quantum mechanical property of spin and the macroscopic property of centrifugal and coriolis forces for all rotating coordinate systems including systems of rigid bodies. It establishes a triple connectivity for Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, and Einstein’s special and general relativity at the local infinitesimal domain of space-time.

The more general implication is that mass is exclusively a property for all secondary attractive forces which are variable forces base on inequalities of their absolute values. However, the absolute values of all primary forces are equal but subjected only to variations in their directional properties. Equality and conservative constancy of absolute values imply repulsions including the general repulsiveness of electric charges and magnetic poles. Since opposite electric charges and opposite magnetic poles attract it can only be implied that at the local infinitesimal domain of space-time their absolute magnitudes cannot truly be equal. In principle this equality and inequality attribute for primary and secondary forces prove indirectly the non-existence of magnetic monopole with one extra condition of time independence (the next topic to be posted).

In closing, a qualitative principle is now possible for all the natural interactions and simply stated as follow: equality repels and inequality attracts.

[Guille]

I have a big wonder. The difference between the equations F=ma and E=mc^2 is that in the first one F and a are the vectors that change whiles in the second one E and m change. This means that they are not compatible equations as mass means is constant in one and variable in another. But instead, we do accept that F=ma is compatible with thermodinamical equation E=Fd or in some cases E=Fr. The important thing is that here we make compatible the vectors of energy and force, obviouslly related. Therefore the equation F=ma is compatible with E=Fd and so is E=mc^2. But these are still not compatible. This doesn't match our logic: we say that if a-->b and b-->c then a-->c is logical. But with these equations we assume newton's law can match the thermodynamic equation, and that this one can match Einstein's, but no that Newtons' can match Einstein. Not much sense.

[AntonioLao]

But these are still not compatible.

They are if and only if the concept of mass is removed permanently. As mentioned, repulsion is a consequence of equality and attraction is a consequence of inequality. Repulsion and attraction has nothing to do with mass or energy but only with square of energy.

[Guille]

They are if and only if the concept of mass is removed permanently. As mentioned, repulsion is a consequence of equality and attraction is a consequence of inequality. Repulsion and attraction has nothing to do with mass or energy but only with square of energy.

When the sqaure of energy is negative there is repulsion and when it's positive there is atraction, or what? The change in change, the time of time, is what defines differentiation or equalization, so it is a parallel idea to the square of energy.

[AntonioLao]

When the sqaure of energy is negative

The square of any quantity can never be negative. It is the same as absolute value.

[Guille]

The square of any quantity can never be negative. It is the same as absolute value.

oh yes I'm stupid I hadn't noticed. then what is the relationship between repulsive-atractive force and square of energy?

[AntonioLao]

what is the relationship between repulsive-atractive force and square of energy?

Attractive force gives kinetic energy of motion. Repulsive force gives potential energy of position (no motion).

[Guille]

Attractive force gives kinetic energy of motion. Repulsive force gives potential energy of position (no motion).

KE gives time and PE gives space. Does this distinction have to do with primary-secondary forces? If so, the fact that EM goes from one to the other, does it mean that it means that it gives space and time?

[AntonioLao]

that it gives space and time?

You got it! I never could have thought that electromagnetism is identical to space-time. Maybe it was in the back of my subconscious but you pull it out, thanks.

All primary forces are repulsive and secondary forces are attractive (relatively speaking).

[Guille]

You got it! I never could have thought that electromagnetism is identical to space-time. Maybe it was in the back of my subconscious but you pull it out, thanks.

All primary forces are repulsive and secondary forces are attractive (relatively speaking).

You'r welcome, but Freud would have said that we all knew it. Now, I do see this starting to make sense: if electromagnetism is spacetime and mass has an origin from electric field and space charge causes the electric charge, and time and magnetism are the same and there is no gravity. This excelent, but what about when there is gravity? It's just a random hypothesis but could it mean that gravity, the curvature of spacetime, is just converting photons into spacetime quanta that is creating over-density and so it has to curve, and photons are converted to spacetime quanta because of some other reason still to find.