Re: Speed of Light Barrier might be Substituted for Higg's field Providing Explination of Mass

On Aug 20, 7:10 am, franklinhu <frankli...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 17, 11:17 am, cjcountess <cjcount...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



The Geometrical Interpretation of, (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled),reveals
link between (String and Loop Quantum Theory) and also why it can be
substituted for the Higg's
Field

This interpretation shows that the energy of space, which is not
absolutely empty, but has a ground state  of (c = h = Cosmological
Constant = Higg’s field), does exhibit what might be considered
strings of energy, as wave of weakest energy and longest wavelength,
resemble strings, and as they gather energy = to E=hf/c^2 they
contract smaller and smaller until they reach c^2, which is energy in
circular and /or spherical rotation, thereby agreeing in this simplest
form with and reconciling both string and loop quantum theory. In
other words as energy goes from c to c^2 it goes from a string
configuration to a loop configuration.

Sense waves tend to cease to exist when they become smaller that the
inter molecular, atomic, or granular, structure of the medium that
they travel through, the turning of energy into matter at c^2 by
acquiring spherical rotation indicates that space at this scale might
be granular too but in a way that is perceptible only indirectly
through logic and analogy.

It also indicates that all waves may not really cease to exist at this
level but only cease to exist in form that they previously did.

Just as sound waves are sometimes used as analogy for light waves,
does sound cease to exist when frequency is highest (the speed of
sound squared) or does it merely escape detection in normal fashion?

And as I stated earlier sense waves tend to go from relatively look
straight lines to spherical form, this might unify both string and
loop quantum theory through conversion factor c^2

 http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ATiDkGLEqaE-ZHNuNXE2Zl8xMDdqeDZxc2d...

also see:http://docs.google.com/View?id=dsn5q6f_101hgtjv9fb

Conrad Countess

I took a look at your link and while I didn't spend the time to
examine it carefully, I must admit that it doesn't make sense to me.
c^2 = c (circular) I still don't get that. Are we talking speed or
area or what?

Your basic point seems to center around E=mc^2. You appear to not
derive this, but rather equate it other things. You eventually
postulate something that has a circular motion. But just what causes
it to do that? The key problem with most every theory I see, is that
they always postulate something that hasn't been shown to exist and
seems illogical. I could easily say that E=mc^2 = little green
martians and it would be equally valid.

Being a crackpot scientist myself, I have some different ideas, so try
these on for size.

I prefer to not have this magical conversion of energy into matter.
How can something like energy - which is basically 'motion' be
converted into something like a 'rock'. If I shake my fist fast
enough, will it turn into a rock? I don't think so. Energy and mass
are universally conserved - except in the supposed 'conversion' which
is a simultaneous violation of both the convservation of energy and
mass.

I don't believe that matter converts into energy. Rather, when
positron and electron come together and 'convert' into energy, what is
really happening is that the positron and electron are accelerated to
the speed of light by their electromagnetic attraction to a kinetic
energy of 1/2mc^2. Upon collision, the particles stick together and
the total kinetic energy (1/2mc^2 + 1/2mc^2 = mc^2) is released into
the environment in the form of photons. The resulting particle is
called a poselectron and this is the real Higgs particle. The
poselectron is a positron/electron dipole and it is the interaction of
this electric field with the electric field of other particles that
give particles mass and inertia. If you search this usenet group for
my other posting, you can see the arguments I have for the mass
mechanism and the Higgs.

Now the reason I prefer this is that it doesn't rely on any magic or
requires particles that we don't know already exist or require
behaviors that we don't already know happen. In other words, no green
martians required. All that is required is newtonian mechanics and
addition. This should also be experimentally verifiable. There is no
reason why the poselectron couldn't be detected in experiments - in
fact, I think it has been, but has just been considered noise to be
filtered out. A positron/electron dipole should also have calculatable
and predicatable characteristics which can be experimentally verified.

If you are interested, my full article on E=mc^2 can found at:

http://franklinhu.com/emc.html

This is part of my larger theory of everything:

http://franklinhu.com/theory.html

I applaud any individual efforts to figure out the universe, but I
insist on 'no magic'. If I can explain the universe without requiring
a particle circling around for no apparent reason and no apparent
mechanism for doing so, I will do that. Look up 'epicycles', that is
what I am trying to avoid.

fhuemc

-----------------
what is so difficult for you to understand that
energy is *mass in motion*
exactly as in macrocosm !!??

2
the natural circular motion of some basic particle
is inevitable!
provided you are able to think
PHYSICS (conservation of momentum etc )--
and understand that
no physical entity that moves in a straight line
is able to do any attraction force !!
and if so
ir must be something that does not move in a sright line
i guess that that lead Einstein
to his Curved space -Time-- postulate
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------

.

Relevant Pages