Relative Quantum Charge Dyanamics

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

If mass has charge.

Not always the case. See neutrinos for instance.

and mass is energy

Yes.

and charge is quantized

Of course it is, charge carriers are discreet.

and energy is quantized

Energy isn't always quantized, it comes from the boundary conditions. Free particles, for instance, don't have quantized energies but a continuous spectrum.

but quanta of energy is not quanta of charge

Of course not, they have different units, for one.

then energy must contain charge.

This doesn't seem to follow.

Therefore I concluded that mass was a flawed definition. Mass by definition defined itself according to Volume.

That isn't true. In classical theory, for instance, elementary particles must be considered as having a pointlike nature (no volume). This is because you can't have an infinitely rigid body in relativity unless it only occupies a point. By deffinition, an elementary particle must be perfectly rigid, so therefore, must be pointlike.

This doesn't have the proper units. Energy is not dimensionless.
-Will

[KickAssClown]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

Not always the case. See neutrinos for instance.

You ignore that in my model I replace the defintion of the Neutrino and it's interactions with classical mass/energy. In my model the Neutrino is defined as the Quanta of Left-handed Charge. The Anti-Neutrino being that of the Right-handed Sort.



I don't know about you but tell me this, in the Definition of Length what are it's Dimensions, other than itself? A definition differs quite a bit from a relationship.

That isn't true. In classical theory, for instance, elementary particles must be considered as having a pointlike nature (no volume). This is because you can't have an infinitely rigid body in relativity unless it only occupies a point. By deffinition, an elementary particle must be perfectly rigid, so therefore, must be pointlike.

Really, which ones? Do tell as I wasn't aware of this.

[KickAssClown]

Would this be correct?

So far I am only dealling with systems that involve Equal and Opposite bodies. When I get this all worked out, then I will concider dealling with more complex Systems, such as Mearged Like Chilarity bodies, where the system becomes more eliptical and begins to deviate from balance.

The goal of this excersise is to show that the will begin to seperate out into the other forces as you begin getting increasingly more compound/complex Orbitial body systems.

It should be noted that the Fundementals are true Ridgid Body Point Particles, which exert a Field of influence out, propagating with zero Lorentz Factor, as such will be relativitely observed to propagate at c.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

I'm lazy will some one for once figure this junk out, so I don't have to?

I must say, that quote is more likely to motivate me to laugh at your equations than to prove or verify them. Perhaps another method of requesting assistance would be more successful? Just a thought...


Cheers.

[KickAssClown]

I've tried a few other strategies. They haven't yeilded any significant assistance. I figured I would be honest and maybe that would help.

It's really really hard to try and calculate out the kinds of things I need to. Nasa doesn't deal with the number of orbits and the complexities of those orbits that I am going to have to inorder to show my thoerm's viability.

I'm all ears if you have a better strategy for asking for aid, as my strategies have done nothing.

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

Your formulas are broken. The right side of the top line doesn't have units of velocity. (there is a mass factor in force that hasn't dropped out, so you have a sqrt kg on the right that isn't on the left).

The goal of this excersise is to show that the will begin to seperate out into the other forces as you begin getting increasingly more compound/complex Orbitial body systems.

That seems unlikely. To calculate v, you need to put your force in by hand. How is adding any more particles to an orbit going to change the force laws?
-Will

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

It's really really hard to try and calculate out the kinds of things I need to. Nasa doesn't deal with the number of orbits and the complexities of those orbits that I am going to have to inorder to show my thoerm's viability.

First off, of course NASA does. Second, even the three body problem doesn't have an exact analytical solution. You are better off simplifying the problem (by removing interactions between two of the smaller bodies, for instance) then putting back in the interaction as a perturbation.
-Will

[EWright]

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

I've tried a few other strategies. They haven't yeilded any significant assistance. I figured I would be honest and maybe that would help.

It's really really hard to try and calculate out the kinds of things I need to. Nasa doesn't deal with the number of orbits and the complexities of those orbits that I am going to have to inorder to show my thoerm's viability.

I'm all ears if you have a better strategy for asking for aid, as my strategies have done nothing.

Well common sense would suggest some way besides claiming to be too lazy to figure them out for yourself. There's no harm in saying you're getting a bit lost in the calculations and asking for some direction; but the way you posed it is as if you don't care enough to put the effort into figuring out your own idea.

Personally, if you can explain it in plain and straight forward english, I'd love to see that. I don't speak the math necessary to understand the majority of your posts. I have a theory of my own that I've laid out in plain english, though I've not posted it quite yet. However, I have a hard time understanding just why it is the mathematical versions can't be expressed in a more verbal way.

You've touched on a couple of points that I'd like to hear more about if you care to endulge me with the written out form. As for those who understand the math, lay it out there and ask for feedback and direction. I've noticed Will being both helpful and challenging you at the same time. Take some advice and direction where you can get it. Also, offer clear reasons why you refute others' advice when you do, so it doesn't seem as though you're just dismissing it. Why offer further constructive criticism if it isn't being taken to heart.

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

At some point I am going to start in on Frequency Analysis of the Neutron and Hydrogen Atom.

Your formula for psi only holds in an infinite square well. It does not work for a hydrogen atom.

Magnetic Dipole Moment (I am not clear on this, is this the same as Permeability?)

Not at all. The magnetic dipole moment is related to the strength of the magnetic (dipole) field given off by the particle.
-Will

[EWright]

KAK,

One other suggestion... it seems as though you're taking on a lot of different aspects of a lot of different things in your theory, but without a complete handle on any one of them. I know you also said you face certain challenges with your short-term memory. Perhaps you shoud work on solving one specific aspect of your theory at at time (that is, unless they all tie together in such a way that you must address them together).