Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Rose,

(just for reference)
===============
There is a debate about the usage of the term "mass" in relativity theory. If inertial mass is defined in terms of momentum then it does indeed vary as M = γm0  for a single particle that has rest mass, furthermore, as will be shown below the energy of a particle that has a rest mass is given by E = Mc2. Prior to the debate about nomenclature the function m(u), or the relation M = γm0, used to be called 'relativistic mass', and its value in the frame of the particle was referred to as the 'rest mass' or 'invariant mass'. The relativistic mass, M = γm0, would increase with velocity. Both terms are now largely obsolete: the 'rest mass' is today simply called the mass, and the 'relativistic mass' is often no longer used since, it is identical to the energy but for the units.
===============

So this would mean that mass of the particle will be constant, whatever velocity,


rgds.

Hi Friz,  I googled the same reference.  I hope you realise that what is actually being said here is that E does not equal mc^2?  My point, in any event, is that the photon needs to have mass - else it has no energy - not even in the unlikely event that it also ever had a rest state. 

Some time back you reference the need for a 'miracle' to explain our results.  I put it to you that it would be a 'miracle' to avoid our results.  But be that as it may.  What I feel would be required by our mainstream scientists is to achieve some kind of 'uniformity' in their basic theories that would explain known measurements in line with those theories. 

But I'll get back to this later tonight.  I need to get some 'shunts' and 'keys' for our campus project.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

If there is no effect on mass perhaps we are working with a -1 charge, what some call anti matter.  It may very well be that the neutral point can coexist wilth both matters.   Seeing this as not incidental you may recognize its similarity in loosely bound electrons, giving matter/anti matter a working exchange path.  (AND of course this is only my thoughts toward the non gravity effect)  Thank you Rosie

edited on spelling

Hello Hope.  I think anti-matter is simply the opposite of matter - provided only that the particles have charge.  In other words there would be no anti photon.  But an anti electron is a positron and an anti proton is just called that - an antiproton.  The thing is that it is understood that at the 'creation' of matter - then as many anti particles must have happened as particles.  But we can't find any 'antis' and when we manufacture them then thy annihilate each other.  The life span of an anti particle in our predominately 'particle' area of the universe - would be neglible to nothing.  I believe they've managed to create positrons and hold them locked in magnetic fields that enable their duration - partially.  But on the whole they're far too unstable to be useable.  Otherwise they'd be a remarkably efficient energy source.  Positron and electron interaction results in 3 photons - I think.

It's an interesting subject.  My own proposal is that when matter was first initiated / created - then matter gravitated to the inner boundaries of our universe and anti matter - proposed as being anti gravitational - gravitated to the outer boundaries.  But that first requires that the universe itself has a boundary.  LOL.  I think I'm now really confronting our classicists.  Of interest - the mainstream proposal is that this antimatter simply annihilated with matter and there was a happy surplus of matter that now predominates.  Not sure how they reconcile this with the symmetries that are also required.  But there you go.  It's not the first time that our mainstream have been able to contradict their own postulates.  The thing is that they keep getting away with it.   

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - I'm nearly at the end - for those who may be finding this exercise of mine a bit tedious.    

One of the more intriguing obsessions of our mainstream scientists is their interest in particle manifestations.  The neutrinos are the smallest and they're also considered to be stable.  But these little numbers could just as easily been seen as a really small photon or a really small electron - and the electron neutrinos - like the electron - theoretically also has it's anti particle â€" its twin.  These are the only stable particles together with the photon, the electron and the proton.  And they’re considered to be infinitely stable which is a really long time.

But the thing is this.  All other particles  â€" whatever their frequency, their mass, their lack of it, their charge, whatever - they all last for really small fractions of time.  Their duration can be measured in terms of quadrillionths of a second - or quintillionths - and so on - getting progressively smaller and progressively more improbable.   Here's the puzzle.  For some reason when one slams one particle into another - inside a bubble chamber - then from the interaction of two stable particles comes this 'particle zoo'.  It's been described as the creation of a really complex fruit salad from a chance meeting of two fruits.   Those myriad particles that manifest for such a brief moment of time - simply decay.  They disappear back into the vacuum of space.  And the proposal is that somehow these manifest particles are the product of that interaction.  It's so energetic that it would be absurd to balance out the energies in terms of thermodynamic laws.

Matter here has multiplied -  inexplicably and exponentially.  Strawberries, plums, apricots, pineapples, grapes, quinces, oranges, apples, and on and on - from the chance interaction of a banana with a small tomato.  So our scientists put paid to that energy equivalence - that all important sum that dominates science in every other respect - and they simply look at the conclusion of that experiment â€" to what happens after the manifest miracle of so much coming from so little.  And in as much as the final product of that interaction is less than the manifest particles that decay - then what is left is precisely the right combination of particles which then evidence a perfect conservation of charge.  One can almost hear the sigh of relief.

No-one, notwithstanding the evidence of this manifest matter in all it's varieties and that variety is widely considered to be potentially infinite - not one of them have suggested that, just perhaps, they are disturbing some kind of matter in the field that holds these particles.  Why is this not considered?  Could it not be that in the moment of interaction all that becomes manifest may be those particles in the field that were first invisible - and after impact, become visible - and then they decay?  That way - and only in that way - would they be able to argue conservation of anything at all.

This is the blind spot, the weak spot - the Achilles heel of our scientists.  There is an evident need or a compulsion to uphold to one inviolate truth regardless of how well it fits with the evidence.  According to mainstream -  energy cannot be created.  And NOTHING can exceed light speed.  My own question is this.  How would we be able to measure anything at all that exceeded light speed?  In our visible dimensions light is the limit to our measuring abilities.  It's the gold standard.  Actually it’s all we’ve got.  We’ve nothing smaller and nothing faster to compare it against.  If anything moved at faster than the speed of light then light itself would NEVER be able to find it.  It would, effectively be invisible. 

Regards,
Rosemary

[powercat]

This is the blind spot, the weak spot - the Achilles heel of our scientists.  There is an evident need or a compulsion to uphold to one inviolate truth regardless of how well it fits with the evidence.  According to mainstream -  energy cannot be created.  And NOTHING can exceed light speed.  My own question is this.  How would we be able to measure anything at all that exceeded light speed?  In our visible dimensions light is the limit to our measuring abilities.  It's the gold standard.  Actually it’s all we’ve got.  We’ve nothing smaller and nothing faster to compare it against.  If anything moved at faster than the speed of light then light itself would NEVER be able to find it.  It would, effectively be invisible. 

Regards,
Rosemary

Hi Rosie
Great stuff we can't get beyond a certain point, the experts say it's impossible
sounds to me like history repeating itself flying beyond the speed of sound was impossible, but first you had to invent the plane
I guess the real question is when   in time all things are possible

cat

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Rosie
Great stuff we can't get beyond a certain point, the experts say it's impossible
sounds to me like history repeating itself flying beyond the speed of sound was impossible, but first you had to invent the plane
I guess the real question is when   in time all things are possible

cat

  Hello Cat.  Always a pleasure to see you around and the more so when we're also on the same page.  And very relieved to learn that at least one reader isn't getting hot under the collar.   

Kindest regards,
Rosie