Re: KING SIZE UNIFICATION!i!
- From: tommy1729 <tommy1729@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:41:55 EDT
dedanoe wrote :
KING SIZE UNIFICATION!i!
beginning with capital letters is usually a sign of crankness...
This is the gravity law: GRR=gM_1M_2; This is the
Coulomb's law: CRR=-
kQ_1Q_2
...as i just said ...
; Every particle must have both electric
charge and mass
because without electric charge the mass will colapse
and without mass
the electric charge will disperse.
da vinci disagrees , newton disagrees , einstein disagrees , hawking disagrees
name 1 prof who agrees with you.
every sane man disagrees with that.
but just for the fun of it , lets assume so.
So, if one of the
above law is
active so is the other
we got your idea the first time
and therefore they can be
unified this way:
URR=gM_1M_2-kQ_1Q_2.
no they cant.
not even assuming your theory
how does this equation restrict to a neccesary charge and gravity ?
this equation does not forbid 0 charge nor 0 gravity.
not even both at the same time.
so the math is really bad.
( really really bad )
Now, the most interesting
outcome from this type
of unification are charge-mass conversions when the
change of mass is
simultaneous with change of electric charge:
E = mc^2 is "more appropriate" than your physics.
energy - mass conversion is einstein period , not newton.
dM_2=(k/g)(Q_1/M_1)dQ_2.
Knowing that k=9e9N(m/C)^2; g=6.7e-11N(m/kg)^2;
Q_1=1.6e-19C and
M_1=9.1e-31kg comes that for change of the electric
charge of
dQ_2=1.6e-19C the change of mass will be entire
dM_2=3.8e12kg, which
is four trillions kg of mass in one tiny particle.
Assuming two such
extra massive particles interact on 1e-12m the
gravitational force
alone between them will be
U=6.7e-11(3.8e12/1e-12)^2=9.7e38N.
lol
Ain't
that force enough?
force enough for what ?
to power your computer so you can post wrong math ?
tommy1729
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Bringing back an old tetration curiosity?
- Next by Date: Re: Did anyone ever get a manual?
- Previous by thread: Integrate f(x(t)) dx/dt dx?
- Next by thread: Re: 9.- Characterizing primes.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
