So why do you think that the model chosen by me was atoms for protons and neutrons. It comes back to P=MV or apparently ( P= mc2 ), if we make velocity equal to the speed of light, and say because A =B, if B = CxD, A = CxD. How do we resolve this apparent dilemma? What is missing from the equation? Was Einstein wrong? No he was too good a mathetician to be wrong. Was Newton wrong, a much more likely proposition given he didn't have as much information to work with, but what he had he used correctly, and although he may have been slightly wrong about gravity, it is understandable. Would it be fair to say that in the case of Mercury, because it is a planet which orbits about one cental point, the sun, it is bound to have a different type of orbit than a planet which orbits around the sun and another mass?

The difference, of course, is that on earth, we are subject to earth's gravity, which is directly proportional to its mass. How do we determing mass when gravity is less, such as on the moon? In space, we assume a photon has no mass, so it is easier to calculate its energy.

Einstein used the example of the clock and the train leaving the station. We know that light travels at the speed of light, so if something happened on earth, like a violent super explosion, we know it would take time for the light from that to travel to a solar system four light years away, but if we could go there, we could witness the event. Einstein say, if you are travelling at teh speed of light, the hands of the clock will not appear to change, because you have a still image of the event in front of your eyes, and time would appear to stand still, between those two (inertial) frames of reference.

From this Einstein deduced that as one approaches the speed of light, time (relative to another frame of reference, the starting point) time slows. We know this to be true.

?

 The Photon

The photon is currently understood to be strictly massless, but this is an experimental question. If the photon is not a strictly massless particle, it would not move at the exact speed of light in vacuum, c. Its speed would be lower and depend on its frequency. Relativity would be unaffected by this; the so-called speed of light, c, would then not be the actual speed at which light moves, but a constant of nature which is the maximum speed that any object could theoretically attain in space-time.[21] Thus, it would still be the speed of space-time ripples (gravitational waves and gravitons), but it would not be the speed of photons.

A massive photon would have other effects as well. Coulomb's law would be modified and the electromagnetic field would have an extra physical degree of freedom. These effects yield more sensitive experimental probes of the photon mass than the frequency dependence of the speed of light. If Coulomb's law is not exactly valid, then that would cause the presence of an electric field inside a hollow conductor when it is subjected to an external electric field. This thus allows one to test Coulomb's law to very high precision.[22] A null result of such an experiment has set a limit of m ≲ 10−14 eV/c2.[23]

Sharper upper limits have been obtained in experiments designed to detect effects caused by the Galactic vector potential. Although the galactic vector potential is very large because the galactic magnetic field exists on very long length scales, only the magnetic field is observable if the photon is massless. In case of a massive photon, the mass term \scriptstyle\frac{1}{2} m^2 A_{\mu}A^{\mu} would affect the galactic plasma. The fact that no such effects are seen implies an upper bound on the photon mass of m < 3×10−27 eV/c2.[24] The galactic vector potential can also be probed directly by measuring the torque exerted on a magnetized ring.[25] Such methods were used to obtain the sharper upper limit of 10−18eV/c2 (that's m ≤ 0.999889861 zeV/c2, or 9.99889861×10−22 eV/c2, the equivalent of 1.07342588×10−30 atomic mass units) given by the Particle Data Group.[26]

These sharp limits from the non-observation of the effects caused by the galactic vector potential have been shown to be model dependent.[27] If the photon mass is generated via the Higgs mechanism then the upper limit of m≲10−14 eV/c2 from the test of Coulomb's law is valid.

Photons inside superconductors do develop a nonzero effective rest mass; as a result, electromagnetic forces become short-range inside superconductors.

What if the photon is not a perfect sphere (even one which inverts itself) but a long ellipse with two central points (centres) of mass. It could even be a group of such objects.

 Constant energy ellipsoids in silicon near the six conduction band minima. The longitudinal and transverse effective masses are m =0.92 m and mt = 0.19 m with m the free electron mass.[2]

 

What mathematical shape has 8, (evenly spaced opposing points? This (octahedron) is the (probable) shape of the second 'energy shell' of an electron cloud surrounding a Neon atom. What mathematical shape has 16 (sides) to it, (with two in the innermost shell pringing the total number of protons and electrons to 18)? This is the shape of an Argon atom. It would (probably, in three dimensional space) look (something) like an octahedron with a corner coming out of the centre of each plane face.

A platonic solid, the Octahedron (8 sides).

(Animation)

 The photon could have two (or three) centres of mass, making it an ellipse shape, or even four dimensional.

We are asked to consider a photon which has some mass. This leads us to ask, is c the speed of a photon, (as we currently understand teh speed of light) or is there another c, a slightly faster "speed of light" which light doesn't actually travel at. Is this teh speed of some other matter, or just a theoretical speed?

 Firefly (species unknown) captured in eastern Canada - the top picture is taken with a flash, the bottom only with the self-emitted light.

Firefly

 Lampyridae is a family of insects in the beetle order Coleoptera. They are winged beetles, and commonly called fireflies or lightning bugs for their conspicuous crepuscular use of bioluminescence to attract mates or prey. Fireflies produce a "cold light", with no infrared or ultraviolet frequencies. This chemically-produced light from the lower abdomen may be yellow, green, or pale-red, with wavelengths from 510 to 670 nanometers.

 In 1900, Maxwell's theoretical model of light as oscillating electric and magnetic fields seemed complete. However, several observations could not be explained by any wave model of electromagnetic radiation, leading to the idea that light-energy was packaged into quanta described by E=hν. Later experiments showed that these light-quanta also carry momentum and, thus, can be considered particles: the photon concept was born, leading to a deeper understanding of the electric and magnetic fields themselves.

What if electricity (electric fields) and magnetism (magnetic fields) are the same thing, just turned slightly (90 degrees) to one another?

Why do magnetic waves affect mainly ferrous (iron) objects, but gravity affects everything equally? Is Hydrogen (with one proton and no neutron) affected differently than Helium, with two of each (four times the mass)? No, water which has two atoms of Hydrogen and one of oxygen falls at the same rate as any other matter, not 60% more slowly or even a fraction more slowly. Gravity is acting on all atomic mass equally. Why then to light objects not fall more slowly than heavy ones? Wouldn't you expect something weighing twice as much to fall twice as fast? After all, a car with the same engine will accellerate much more slowly if it it towing a trailer with an equal (again) mass on it. 

A tetrahedron 

(Animation)

The most simple three dimensional shape is the tetrahedron.

 Tetrahedron

In geometry, a tetrahedron (plural: tetrahedra) is a polyhedron composed of four triangular faces, three of which meet at each vertex. It has six edges and four vertices. The tetrahedron is the only convex polyhedron that has four faces.[1]

The tetrahedron is the three-dimensional case of the more general concept of a Euclidean simplex.

 For any tetrahedron there exists a sphere (the circumsphere) such that the tetrahedron's vertices lie on the sphere's surface.

 The dual of a cube is an octahedron, shown here with vertices at the cube face centers.

In geometry, a Platonic solid is a convex polyhedron that is regular, in the sense of a regular polygon. Specifically, the faces of a Platonic solid are congruent regular polygons, with the same number of faces meeting at each vertex; thus, all its edges are congruent, as are its vertices and angles.

There are exactly five Platonic solids (up to similarity):

 Circumscribed sphere

In geometry, a circumscribed sphere of a polyhedron is a sphere that contains the polyhedron and touches each of the polyhedron's vertices. The word circumsphere is sometimes used to mean the same thing. When it exists, a circumscribed sphere need not be the smallest sphere containing the polyhedron; for instance, the tetrahedron formed by a vertex of a cube and its three neighbors has the same circumsphere as the cube itself, but can be contained within a smaller sphere having the three neighboring vertices on its equator.

All regular polyhedra have circumscribed spheres, but most irregular polyhedra do not have one, since in general not all vertices lie on a common sphere. It is possible to define the smallest containing sphere for such shapes.

The radius of sphere circumscribed around a polyhedron P is called the circumradius of P.

The circumscribed sphere is the three-dimensional analogue of the circumscribed circle.

 

 

Make a free website with Yola