[paul tatham]

Have a look at my website.
http://particles.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk
This explains all of the mysteries and suggests that the problem is that scientists have made errors.
The errors are discussed.
It also discusses the cause of cancer

[Guille]

Hi paul,

Welcome to toe quest.

Here on the forums we apreciate a summarized presentation, could you do a post doing this?

Thanks.

[paul tatham]

There are a few basic laws.
Law 1. Everything in the universe is made of particles. There isn't anything else.
Therefore space, mass, time, light, dark matter are all generated by particles
Law 2. E = mc 2. Where 'm' is the electromagnetic wave generated by a particle with velocity. 'c' is the speed of light which is constant.
Therefore 'm' is space and mass. They are both the same thing. They are dark matter.
The period between two particles in a stream is 'time'
Every atom emits particles so every atom produces 'time' and 'space'
The big error by scientists is a misunderstanding of what mass is.
Mass does not cause inertia. Mass is not a constant, it varies with energy.
Inertia is the time to produce the dimension of space, and that is why there is a maximum velocity of a particle.
If 'E' is high enough, the wave is light. So mass, space and light are all basically the same thing.
Gravity is the back e. m. f. generated by the moving particle.
It is all simple school physics. Nothing mysterious about it.
Read more on my website
http://particles.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk
Paul

[dleviwing]

I think particle physicists would agree with law 1 up to a certain extent, however mass and time are only mathematical dimensions required to convey a measurement of quantity of matter (mass) and a measurement based on a motion reference. (time)

Einstein's energy equation is derived from (E^2=p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 ) where p is the momentum of an object (mass x velocity). Since a photon has zero mass, the p^2 x c^2 goes to zero. Take the square root function and the result is Einstein's equation.
Einstein's energy equation only tells us the amount of energy we can expect if the mass of an object is converted to total radiant energy.

Believe it or not, scientist and mathematicians are actually intelligent people!

[paul tatham]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

I think particle physicists would agree with law 1 up to a certain extent, however mass and time are only mathematical dimensions required to convey a measurement of quantity of matter (mass) and a measurement based on a motion reference. (time)

Einstein's energy equation is derived from (E^2=p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 ) where p is the momentum of an object (mass x velocity). Since a photon has zero mass, the p^2 x c^2 goes to zero. Take the square root function and the result is Einstein's equation.
Einstein's energy equation only tells us the amount of energy we can expect if the mass of an object is converted to total radiant energy.

Believe it or not, scientist and mathematicians are actually intelligent people!

A photon of light has mass.
It also has a charge but because it is a Higgs Boson the charge cannot be measured.
The only way to find the boson is to cancel gravity - that's on my website.
The error with maths is if you don't know how a particle moves you cannot write an equation for it.
If you think it swings like a pendulum you are wrong - it goes like a bullet.
Only the wave oscillates.
Paul

[dleviwing]

I am sorry Paul but since you have created your own definitions of physics terms, I find no grounds that we can carry on a discussion. If I were to attempt to teach you physics, you would undoubtedly consider it an insult just as I find your website to be an insult to people who work in the professions of physics. I regret that I am not willing to give up the education that cost so much just to accept your premise that scientist have made so many blunders.

[subversion]

easy there dleviwing, remember to keep an open mind. Physics as it stands is very reputable, but then again, it has failed to complete itself hasn't it. Often stringent physicists find themselves down nonsensical roads such as string theory. There are no insults here, only an attempt to understand eachother and by thus doing so understand the world around us.

I for one can see something of importance that Paul has mentioned. He says that photons have mass, but it is widely accepted that photons do not have mass. Since you are of the mind that photons have no mass, perhaps you can answer this question which should be quite confounding. How can photons be affected by gravity lest they have mass???

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by subversion

How can photons be affected by gravity lest they have mass?

by the equivalence of mass and energy , since a photon is pure energy, gravity also affects energy.

[Mr. Nobody]

The trend I see in myself, is, that the more I know, the more I realize what I don't know or can not understand.

I disagree with Law 1.
I understand the uncertainty principle to be what defines the sub atomic realm more than anything else. I think of the particle as a bit of information (an idea from Wheeler). Particles in that sense are not like kernels of sand or defined nuggets of matter flying through space, what they are, is knowledge of the wave, its description exiting the fog of uncertainty through decoherance, the bumping and grinding disturbance of other propability waves intersecting consistantly. No true solids exist, what we touch, what we feel, is the electromagnetic force field of fingers interacting with the electromagnetic force field of objects. Even atoms are not matter, there core are quarks and leptons bound together by the strong force. And all we know is that quarks and leptons are smaller than 10-19 meters in radius. As far as we can tell, they have no internal structure or even any size. It is possible that future evidence will, once again, show this understanding to be an illusion and demonstrate that there is substructure within the particles that we now view as fundamental. Here we go again, even quarks are nothing tangible. It is pure energy at the boundary of becoming realized. It is my humble assertion to think of the universe in terms of spinning and rotating waves within fields of energy without a true concept of solid, touchable matter.

I appologize for my meek effort to put in words what is swirling about inside my head

[subversion]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

by the equivalence of mass and energy , since a photon is pure energy, gravity also affects energy.

so we can say that a photon acts like it has a small amount of mass? I believe the energy of a photon is given by it's wavelength times the planck constant. If photons act like they have a small amount of mass than why do we differentiate? Just call a cat a cat if you know what I mean?