Gravity: A Theory in Crisis (no joke!)

CEH ^ | May 5, 2009

[MHGinTN]

Cling to the standard model with all your might; wouldn’t want to open your mind to any other possibilities don’tchaknow.

[lafroste]

You'll have to explain why particles accelerated to near-light speeds are observed to gain mass.

If I am correct, the particle accelerated to near light speed does not actually gain mass, it has an apparent mass gain when observed from outside because it's time has slowed down. I have decided that the choice between more mass/less time is indistinguishable outside of the system under study. Since both sets of equations reduce to the same expression, one cannot look at this case to determine what is really going on.

[aNYCguy]

When an electron hit a positron (anti-electron), the result is two or more gamma ray photons with no particle results.

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here (and by the way, photons are particles, so the result of the impact is definitely a collection of particles). By "irreducible," I only meant that attributes such as charge are currently fundamental and cannot be described in terms of another concept like energy.

My original point was that a particle cannot be entirely characterized by its mass and energy. In addition, one has to to give its charge, spin, topness, bottomness, etc., none of which are forms of energy. They're currently irreducible to other concepts.

[aNYCguy]

Cling to the standard model with all your might; wouldn’t want to open your mind to any other possibilities don’tchaknow.

Gotcha. I thought you were attempting to discuss physics, not waxing philosophic on your own idiosyncratic particle model.

I wouldn't say that I'm "clinging to the Standard Model with all my might," but I feel pretty safe ignoring new models consisting entirely of "Dude, isn't a particle just a pinch of time and space wrapped up in energy?"

[aNYCguy]

Okay, let’s take a simpler situation lacking relativistic speeds. Mass can be observed to be lost in its own reference frame, say, when deuterium-tritium fusion takes place. There’s a certain amount of mass beforehand, and measurably less after the fusion takes place. Thus, mass is not conserved. I expect you’ll have a tough time reconciling your theory with this.

[MHGinTN]

So bright! ... I didn’t use the term ‘dude’, but then your apparent trip to this thread is more to boost your ego than to discuss the thread topic so carry on, dude/dudette. I’m certain some readers will be very impressed with you.

[lafroste]

Thus, mass is not conserved. I expect you’ll have a tough time reconciling your theory with this.

Actually, not really. My theory also claims that mass and energy are different facets of the same thing (steam and ice). Any mechanical machination to inter convert them is fine with me.

[aNYCguy]

My theory also claims that mass and energy are different facets of the same thing

This is exactly what Special Relativity holds. Your theory doesn't conserve mass, so you might want to leave out the eyebrow-raising claim that your theory conserves mass in the future.

[Fichori]

Yes, except that nobody can directly observe the past to know the age of the universe, it is all circumstantial, and radioisotope dating is not strictly physics (it was covered in chemistry); and once you apply it to rock ages because you must presume initial conditions to know the age, and once again nobody was around taking measurements at the beginning to know what the original composition of the rocks were.

“Nobody can directly observe an electron, either.” [excerpt]

This is a strawman because an electron can be indirectly observed in the here and now.

History cannot be directly or indirectly observed in the present.