Jokela New Member
  • Male
  • from Swiss (or Europe)
  • Member since Oct 22nd 2016
  • Last Activity:

Posts by Jokela

    More important: J should show us a concept how he can preserve Newton mechanics without using mass...


    Sure. And even that concept isn't any self-defined-never-heard-mambo-jambo which one could mostly expect..


    Froude's law.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Froude_number


    Here is also good discussion about this;

    https://physics.stackexchange.…e-froude-number-represent

    Especially the answer of the "Isopycnal Oscillation".


    Basically the Fr=1 is neutral, in FR<1 there is acceleration and Fr>1 there is deceleration


    Notice that Fr= ak= s

    where a is the wave amplitude and k is the wavenumber and as wavenumber~frequency (f)

    therefore Fr = af so you can think about plancks constant with that.


    Further wave energy is basically ~ E= a^2

    and Power is ~P = a^2*f


    Which proposes that planck constant is a squared value of the very basical stuff. This is would make the Kitzlings constant also a plain ratio.


    ...this is ofcourse short chat answer, but I hope it helps forward those who are interested.

    PhysicsForDummies

    The Crackpots have per definition "unshakable belief" which I don't have. I am very open to any possible answers and options. The scientific method is simple; if something disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. That's all there is to this. You are free to deliver better answers...


    Dr Richard

    Philosophy... Well no. E=mc^2 is an equation which shows a relation and it should be written E/m = c^2 which is a constant.

    But saying "there is no mass" doesn't mean that there isn't this acceleration related thing which we call "mass" and which can be be measured. Or even that that this usage of the concept mass in some local scale (like in earth) wouldn't be reasonable. The point is to notice that the total mass of universe is zero. The important local usage of this idea is that the energy of destructed matter is constant and not mass related. If you look the typical nuclear reactions in the known nuclear Powerplants, the equation E=mc^2 actually doesn't provide you the accurate energy release from the system related to the mass.


    (And of course joke's are funny and humor is a good thing, but after a certain developement level you just don't laugh to the simplest stuff.)


    (1) Not interested. According to my experience those who understand are able to do it with or without typos.

    (2) This is reasonable question and I must apologize if there is something which is not clear, but without any specific hint I am not able to do anything about it.

    (3) Sure, would be nice to have.

    (4) This is good one. I ie. knew about the coronal heating problem, but when "I walk along this path" I noticed that this "excessive heat" must be present in Earths near space, and when I checked this, I immediately found "thermosphere". But how should I predict "thermosphere"...

    And I also became an idea how I the states of matter could be defined from the speed of light, and the first step was between condensed-kinetic matter, but that could have been only a coinsidence, but then I got another step forward and got an idea how this could also explain the kinetic-plasma change and it did, and this idea was also supported by the observations in Earths atmosphere, but also in the atmospheres in other planets.


    There is some mistaken steps in my papers which for i need to laugh today, but the basic concept (mass is a pseudo thing) has standed through this all. I propose this paper to read if you search some predictive powers;

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…d_from_The_Speed_of_Light


    And I admit that these could be better written. But then; "only a fool here has anything to prove". What I wan't to say with this, is that I don't care at all if I can convince some others with this. I am only interested about if I have been able to work this out my self. At the moment I am sort of in the same situation like Charles Darwin was after his voyages with Beagle. He had figured things out, but the big book was still waiting to be written. So maybe I write such book some day. Maybe not. It just doesn't change anything in reality. Anyhow; thanks for interest & direct opinions said loud.


    But this all is basically very easy. Leave mass out. And try to solve everything without it.

    It's ofcourse "cool" to talk about QM, GR, SM and various Quantum centrums etc. But it doesn't contribute much to this issue.


    First of all, I have went through all these undoubtly very well working mathematical models about observable physics. As if any changes on any concepts are made, this stuff which is obviously correct, must also remain at least in mathematical interpretation exact the same.


    So basically what is needed is just to change something, which only corrects the problems, but keeps everything else in physics intact and as it was.

    It's also preferred that this change makes thing more simple.


    And this is exactly what has been achieved here.

    Though the change is at first view unbelievably messy, it actually isn't. There is no mass. We don't need the unit "kg" to be able to describe whole physics totally completely.

    This change keeps everything as they are, but removes the contradictions. The explanation of mass can't be found from Higgs Boson or inside the particle. It's source is the galactic rotation through Thomas Precession.

    This obviously destroys the fundaments of (Newtonian) Gravity, as if there is no mass, there also can't be any Newtonian Gravity. This all I realized already few years ago; Gravity can be explained more simply.


    What has been more interesting, is to walk the path where this leads. As when I have been thinking all the consequences of this, and then observed some "mysterious" stuff in nature, this idea has been able to provide a comprehensive solvable answer in all other cases besides the mass ratio of Electron and Proton and to related things.

    This was now changed when Preston Quynn provided his stuff.


    To me it was very easy to absorb his unit corrections, which I agree must sound really "grazy" to anyone who understands something about physics. As the units just must work, or other vice it's just numerology.


    What I don't understand, is why it's so difficult to accept that mass, "kg" is just a manmade concept which lacks universally valid foundation of it's existence. As that what it just is. A piece of metal in Paris. The resent change to define it through some "kibbs balance" is not working if you look close the story. There is no lab results which could have been reproduced in reasonable accuracy.


    Luckily I don't need to fight for this. The truth will stand on it's own. To me it's just another level of "flat earth"-theorists when some "THHuxleynew" writes a comment like;

    Quote

    "This is complete and utter rubbish at every level. "


    I just smile and think "Sure, in every level on your reach." (Not meant to insult here, just replying my true thoughts.)


    The most interesting thing here is the Entropy turning point; the answer about the big question. "Where is the beginning and how all ends?"

    As there is no Beginning and no end. As this all can keep going over infinite time. This means you will have enough time to play with the LHC searching the mass and quantum gravity. The infinite number of the "small particles inside the hadrons" just make's it so "cool".

    And the Higgs boson as a mechanism to provide other particles with mass is very very cool.


    https://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/111


    From your "cool" link;


    Quote


    The solution formulated by Higgs, Englert, and Robert Brout (who worked with Englert at ULB but is now deceased) proposes that all of space is filled with a field that interacts with the weak force particles to give them mass. It does so because the field is assumed not to be zero in empty space. This nonzero ground state violates a symmetry that is considered fundamental to quantum field theory. Earlier work had shown that this kind of symmetry breaking led to a massless, spinless particle that was ruled out by experiments [1]. Englert, Brout, and Higgs showed how one could make this unwanted particle disappear by coupling the space-filling field to the weak-force field. When they worked out all of the interactions, they found that the force particles effectively had a mass, and the unwanted, massless, spinless particle was essentially absorbed by the weak particles. These particles gained a third spin state as a result, and the only remaining spinless particle was the massive Higgs boson. A similar theory was developed by a third team of theorists in the same year [2].


    If it's "cool" to have a complicated model, then this surely is really "cool".

    And if this whole story is much more simpler, then it's not "cool" any more?


    Then my idea really isn't so "cool".

    I am just sorry.


    ... and what then produces this "all space filling field?" in this "cool" story?


    You know, I sort of went through ALL you freaking "cool" problems already few years ago, and found that they all weren't so "cool";

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…f_Physics_3032016_version


    Now as this paper from Preston has provided the last missing piece, I started to work this out more properly with this project;

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…hysics-no-mass-no-gravity


    ... but it's not a "cool" project. Sorry.

    The text in the paper relies on previous work claimed to be from Fatio / Le Sage without a reference or anything more specific. In fact the paper has no references!


    which is certainly dimensionally incorrect.


    Thanks for your comment. I am fine with your opinion, and these kind of stuff must be expected in such an occasions.


    Btw. Can you tell where Isaac Newton draw the dimensions to the G-factor? And is there any particular reasons which implies that these dimension are "correct", and can't be expressed any simpler way. I think newton him self said that "it's just a mathematical model"..


    My conclution is that the total mass of universe is zero. This simply means that the mass is a pseudo thing, which doesn't exist and it doesn't have the interpretaions we are giving to it. ie. E = mc^2 is just correcting the E and m relation to c^2, but this relation is not universal.


    How can photon even have any energy or impuls when it doesn't have any mass? So this means that it is possible to left the "kg" out of all the definitions of photon, and still the photon is completely definded including it's "energy". And if this is possible to photon, then it's possible to the rest.


    Now, try to write some other existing physics than photon without the "mass" and you will notice certain problems.

    Was some theory even wrong according to you?

    What is wrong and what is right is defined by scientific method. This method alouds you to fill up your equations with pile of mathematical garbage if you like. And as long as the mathematics behind the theory produces results which can be verified with experiments with some usable accuracy, the theory can't be defined "wrong".


    Ie. if I say Pi = 3

    Is it wrong? and if yes, what is then the correct numerical value?


    Do you note, that you can define Pi exactly only if you found the correct idea behind it which alouds you to calculate it?

    That's why correct Ideas are so revolutionary.

    But it is unlikely that the current SM will be found totally wrong and void.


    Sure. As it is mostly right. I make a question pattern to show what I mean.


    Q; Was Geoncentric model wrong?

    A: No. It was just more simple model which produced complicated equations in more complicated stuff. Ptolemaic epicycles were all correct and working, but for the most of the people just too complicated

    see this;

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    Q: Is it wrong to say earth is flat?

    A: No. Its just more simple model, and if your travelling abilities are limited, this simpler model is much more easier to use in local scale. Actually ie. 99.9% of construction works is made with this assumption. Round Earth is for some of the people too complicated structure.


    Q: Is Standard model wrong?

    A: No. It's just more simple model which produces complicated equations in more complicated stuff, but if these are ignored it's all correct and working. Dark matter etc are very good explanations for people who are too simple to understand bigger scale stuff.


    Note that though the epicycles of geocentric model are quit complicated, this complexity is only two dimensional, you just count the same until you have solved the problem. It's just hard work. But nothing which explodes your mind, everything remains within the acceptable frame which your mind is able to absorb.


    This same approach fits to the standard model. It's mostly right. I would say 99%. Thus it's so diffucult to change something within it, so that this 99% can remain unchanged, but the missing 1% gets corrected. Why would thery be any "conspiracy" if people are doing stuff almost 99% right?


    Let's take another appoach to this issue. a sort of "dialogue" like that from Galileo?


    Let's just accept that Standard model is 99% right, and lets list that what is unexplained?

    If you look these, you will notice a pattern pointing out the most propable cause for all this mess.


    Edit; What I am trying to say here, it's that it would be also possible to say that "Geocentric model is totally wrong", if you like. It's not even so, that Einstein made the Newtons Gravity and force laws "totally wrong". These are educated up to today!


    Yet Einstein improved these theories, and the ideas behind these theories of einsteins shows that the ideas behind Newtons theories are "totally wrong", though the equations are right. Similarily the Idle-wheels of Maxwell are also wrong as an idea, but still this was the path which was used to create the Maxwell-equations.


    So I conclude here that this is an revolution in the Idea level. It answers us the "why" we wont ever find the mass by breaking particles to smaller pieces. It tells us why gravity works, and explains us stuff which we were wondering previouosly. But still, the 99% of known physics remains correct and can be used. Only the ideas behind it changes.

    Do you really think ? Eq 15,16 are e.g. derived by given mass ratio thus they must match no new insight... And what about the proton radius he claims to calculate? Can you give any experiment where it has been approximately measured?

    Well, Mass ist the measurement,where explaining mathematik has been missing. The power of this work of Guynn is that it shows that mass (gravitational force) comes from galactic rotation. We have enough measurements for "gravity" but no explaining physical theory ...


    edit; the radius fits perfectly to my insights. But to open eyes; what id the radius of Earth? would it be possible to have some other values by just changing definitions? This radius of guynn explains measured stuff with high accuracy.

    ...Like Euler radius for turbines...

    Dear Sirs,


    There is no "conspiracy's". It's just lack of better knowledge. I mean the physics has reached the level, where it's almost complete. And Standard Model just is so widely discussed that is used as a reference. It's obviously not very easy to abandon this model with something which is less complete, as the possibility of this model not being even able to reach the completeness of Standard Model must be low. etc. etc.


    So instead of debating something like above, though it might be interesting, the major problem is not "wrong tie" or anything like that. The only thing we need is to keep working out the problems and produce better answers. I have already tried this once;


    https://www.researchgate.net/p…f_Physics_3032016_version


    And I was quite happy already when I wrote this few years ago. Now after Mr. Preston Guynn has provided the math I was missing, this kind of paper could be worked out even more properly.


    But before this can happen, we need to be able to abandon our own "conspiracy of understanding. "

    I think the major problem is the belief, that from atomic mass difference could be some energy source. That just cant be true if the whole mass is created by some galactic rotation & precession which are better known as "gravitational force". Every proton and electron have a certain energy, but that's it.

    ... I think...


    But what needs to be done? Just a better model must be created, and then will happen was planck has said;


    Quote
    • Eine neue wissenschaftliche Wahrheit pflegt sich nicht in der Weise durchzusetzen, daß ihre Gegner überzeugt werden und sich als belehrt erklären, sondern vielmehr dadurch, daß ihre Gegner allmählich aussterben und daß die heranwachsende Generation von vornherein mit der Wahrheit vertraut gemacht ist.

    A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.



    Dear Sirs,


    I want to bring this back to the desk, because I have some concerns about the safety issues of nuclear reactions, and where it might lead us. The Castle Bravo high yield is a dangerous stuff.

    As a dedicated researcher you now have to find the physical meaning of what the formula suggests as obviously some connections are missing. Having a good solution is always a nice starting point for further investigations. But in real physics there is no way to apply the proposed unit corrections...


    True (units). Because the whole consept of "mass" is wrong since Newton and the invention of "Gravity".

    Mass is not a real thing, it's a measurement result. That's why the Watt balance / Kibble balance never succeeded to have proper results. They varied between morning and afternoon.


    Michelson-Morley experiment showed that speed of light is constant. If this (kind of) experiment is done for the mass, we will notice that mass is not constant and depends on our orientation on space. So my idea could even be proven on the lab. I haven't said this so loud before, because I could not find the math, and therefore it was also impossible to define any expectations. But now Mr. Preston Guynn has showed, that it's the center of the Galaxy which counts, and the math is also clearly available, so that now it would be reasonable to do such an experiments, as the interpretation of the results would not sunk in the debate of measurement problems like with "Watt balance".


    So, for a real physics we need to start to define everything without using the unit "kg".


    This is a problem for sure! I bet this will take another generation, because we can't even use the language we have learned.

    - Force?

    - Energy?

    - Power?


    If some one has interest about these units, I've take a (blind) shot on this direction here;

    https://physics.stackexchange.…aximum-free-molecule-size

    And this is my paper about it;

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…ything_-THE_MATH_07102016


    But at the moment, I need to admit that these are wrong, and these are just numerology, Though the area moment of inertia could have been possible massless-explanation. It's not.

    Thus the model needs a rework to show the real physics behind the numerical calculations. There is a good chance that he hit on something hidden.


    I may write more later, but to me this was very easy to recognize, as I have been seeking this kind explanation. The problems we have in physics are all related to mass, and I noticed that mass might not exist at all, I mean total mass of universe is Zero, and we only feel mass because we are a part of rotating system. I have seeked similar model by my self, but my problem was that I concentrated only to our solarsystem. But obviously the matter creation needs galagtic scale. This is, now when it's said, somehow obvious, and I wonder why I couldn't figure it out before.

    This Thomas Precession was also a new issue for me, but I don't feel it has been prevented me to find this solution. As I have been able to create solutions from scratch all my life...


    Maybe these papers from me helps you to enter this new massless physics. Please note that they should be rewritten, and now merely show the evolution of my thoughts up to here. This is the one to start with;

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…vity_Theory_of_Everything

    With alpha you mean the Equation 32? I have presented it also here;

    https://physics.stackexchange.…cture-of-matter-and-space


    There is

    2; in my excel with this accuracy;

    2.00000000000000000000000

    Pii;

    3.14159265358979000000000

    Term "1" V_g/ (Sqrt2 V_m)

    SQRT 2


    1.41421356237310000000000

    v_g

    v_m

    -221677.92498800000000000

    Term 1 Result;

    134965504.6377600000000000

    Term 2 result;

    0.00116140760870036000000

    Alpha; Result;

    0.00000000212371568617288

    Alpha; wiki is the same with said 11 digits;

    0.0072973525693


    I consider this is right. The values are copy paste's from my Excel sheet.



    0.00729735256633185000000


    This was btw even said in the paper;

    Quote

    The value calculated for α using Equation 32 matches the CODATA recommended value to eleven significant

    digits7. The calculation using only the first of the two parenthetical terms would match six significant digits.

    I documented the math here;


    https://physics.stackexchange.…ation-velocity-calculated


    And those who might like to visualize these equations;


    https://www.mathsisfun.com/data/grapher-equation.html


    And there copy paste this to the Equation line;


    (4^(1/3)-1)^3/x^2-4-1/(1-x^2)+4/(1-x^2)^(1/2)=y


    To me this looks pretty much like the atomic propulsion attraction thing...

    The same line can be copied here to get it solved;

    https://www.dcode.fr/equation-solver


    note that x = v/c

    so x^2 = v^2 / c^2

    I have now completed this checking.

    The value in EQ (28) which practically defines the Galactic velocity is purely mathematical construct, which can be derived with the presented mathematic.

    It gave me roots;


    −0.608309

    OR

    0.608309

    OR

    −0.91592

    OR

    0.91592


    So, as the EQ (32) uses only v_g, v_m and c, (k_2 is just "units-cleaning") it's a pretty solid path with no circular reasoning involved.


    That's it.

    My only question is now only "How long does it take that mankind is able to correct it's approach?"

    With Galileo it took > 100 years.

    With Einstein it took 14 Years.